Somebody actually wants to KEEP the Borg Spotting in the game...

[aka_tom_w]

The Colonel

Junior Member

Member # 17335

posted September 07, 2005 11:21 AM

KEEP:

1. I know I'm in the minority on this, but hear me out. I think Borg spotting has to stay. The reason is that a player essentially has "Borg control" over all of his forces. In other words, you can still give orders to a unit that is out of command, albeit with some delay. In reality you may not even know where your own units are or be able to give any orders at all if it is the real-world equivalent of "out of command". But as a player we get a "God's eye view" which is necessary to be able to play the game. Therefore you know exactly where all your own units are and can always communicate with them. Borg spotting is a necessary side effect of this. Imagine how complex it would be if an enemy unit were moving toward your lines. First you have to check each unit to see who has LOS to that unit, like we do now, then you have to somehow determine who is actually seeing it. And if a unit has LOS to the emeny, but doesn't "see" it, what will we do? Would there be a "hey look over there" order? Because if any my units on the map spots an enemy unit, then I as the player have knowledge of that unit. And if I as the player can communicate with any of my units at anytime, then that should include all the current knowledge of the enemy locations. Which means Borg spotting. I know it's not necessarily realistic, but I think the gameplay mechanics would be a disappointment to many if we did away with it.

2. Please keep the flexibility in size of game that can be played, as I like scenarios approaching Division size.

Well I am under the asumption the Relative spotting will eliminate the BORG and Borg Spotting.

I am hoping this is NOT open for discussion.

-tom w

[Soddball]

This was worth an extra thread in a busy forum.

[mike_the_wino]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I am hoping this is NOT open for discussion.

Aye comrade. Any dissenting views should be squashed for the good of the state.

Seriously...WTF?!?!!?!? Why is this idea any worse than one of the 10,000 all ready floating out there?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

It's not like he hasn't got a point.

It will be infuriating to see units get killed by enemies that have been in LOS for ages but not spotted by that particular unit. Borg spotting might have been as unrealistic as Hades but it did make the game easier to understand and control.

I know I and several of my opponents in te past had little time for the tankcrews that didn't see the tank hunter running up to them where everyone else did. With borg spotting removed controlling your units will become a lot more unwieldy. This may very well be where realism finally crashes headlong into gameplay, though it all depends on implementation, ofcourse. BFC have a great reputation in having realism not detract from gameplay and though it might seem from the little we know that realism gets priority on this issue, they have always surprised me. In a good way.

[aka_tom_w]

Well yes

it is ALL about how they execute and implement Relative Spotting in the UI of CMx2.

I am confident it will be GREAT and I am looking forward to playing the DEMO (many months off still) with great anticipation!

-tom w

[YankeeDog]

I do very much want to see Borg Spotting go, but he does have a point; Relative Spotting will require much more realistic modeling of C&C to be realistic, so that units eventually become aware of enemy that other friendlies have spotted. It just shouldn't happen right away as it does now, and the rate at which the information about new enemy gets around should be dependent on C&C factors. So intra-platoon should be very quick, but when a lone (and radioless) sharpshooter far out in front of any other friendlies spots an enemy tank, it should take quite a while for the info to spread to other units.

But if you read back through threads on the CMBB forums, you'll find that Steve has already mentioned this, and BFC is well aware of the important relation between Relative Spotting and

C&C.

Cheers,

YD

[gunnersman]

So...just make it an option you can turn off.

[Zalgiris 1410]

Actually I agree that the newbie has made a fair point and I realised the logic behind his strang born again borg point of view, sometime after I stopped gut-wrenchingly laughing and finally calmed down enough to a smerky gaspy giggle.

Perhaps it might have been a good thing if the BFC had of waited a bit longer for greater PC hardware capacity to deal with the omnipotent borg problem and solved just about everything else first and put out an improved CMx1.4. It would have allowed all those non relative spotting aspects to have been taken care of and provided a good additional intermidiatory CM game at least for those willing to cope with it before the final developement of CMx2. (But too late now, & at least hopefully also for its demo!) :eek:

[ September 10, 2005, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

[Battlefront.com]

To stick with the Borg we would have to stick with Absolute Spotting. That ain't happening. Not even as an option (which I am sure isn't possible to do anyway).

The point is, however, not a bad one. Some people are not going to be (initially) comfortable with the more realistic implications of Relative Spotting. However, what many people forget is that it cuts both ways. Now you can have a better chance of ambushing someone or sneaking around his flank or not getting clobbered by units that are hundreds of meters apart.

And all of this will only be as confusing as we make it be. Trick is in the UI and we're all set on that one.

Divisional size... well, we all know our stance on that

Hardware isn't the issue when it comes to removing the Borg. Restricting player control is. That's actually pretty easy for us to do. Just lock you the camera to a Platoon HQ or Company HQ and bingo... no more Borg spotting problem. The game wouldn't be fun or really even any good if that is all we did, but as I've said a million times before, the way to solve the problem is rather straight forward. It's just not a practical option from a marketing standpoint.

Steve

[roqf77]

sorry ive forgotten. feel free to call me a nub but what is relative spotting again? (arty can only target units slash plasces in los of friendly units)

[aka_tom_w]

here are a few threads to read relative spotting

Battlefront.com Spotting rules in CMx2 are not going to be like spotting rules in CMx1. More variability, more uncertainty, and of course more realism in terms of who can spot what.

Battlefront.com

Administrator

Member # 42

- posted February 26, 2005 07:57 PM

,

Steve says:

I've said earlier that I am not going to speculate on how we are going to get around the inability to do 1:1 spotting. Period. It is not the right time for that since whatever design we go with will be highly influenced by technological limitations, not creative limiations.

Tero, I explained this earlier. It is really straight forward. You click on one unit and it shows what it can see. You click on another unit and it shows what it can see. The two may or may not overlap, they may or may not be in conflict with each other. The less C&C contact, the less those two units will likely have in common with each other. Circumstances are, of course, very important so there is no one right answer.

Wartgamer, your questions are too low level and not relevant to what the player needs to know. It is also something I can't answer since we haven't coded it at this point. Nothing good every comes when lay people try to get this low level. Never. Focus on behavior questions and the rest will follow.

Steve

more recent thread in which Steve talks about Relative spotting

The Absolute Spotting system (yes, THAT again [smile] ) creates less uncertainty, and therefore less disincentive to moving units around radically. In real life you have three companies abreast at the beginning of an op, for example, for a reason... to cover your butt all along the line. In CMx1 there comes a time when you are pretty sure you know where all the enemy is that is worth knowing about, and can therefore change your plans accordingly. That won't be as easy to do in CMx2. Plus, the certainty that moving x unit to y location so it can fire at z enemy unit is also not certain since Relative Spotting removes this assured behavior. Lastly, C&C rules in CMx2 will make things, in general, harder to coordinate.

All the above does, however, depend on the way the player chooses to play the game. Least realistic settings will mean more flexibility, most realistic even more restrictions than I've mentioned.

Playback is an interesting aspect of Relative Spotting. We want to restrict the player from seeing anything in the Movie that he wouldn't know during the game. However, some players might not like the full implications of this, so we will likely allow some options. The first option is that he sees all enemy units as if he is looking at all his units at once (i.e. from the relative position of each friendly unit all at once).

When there is conflicting information, like two different units spotting the same enemy unit in two spots, the more accurate spotting is the one that gets displayed by default. If you clicked on the friendly unit that had the poorer viewpoint, then you would indeed still see the more wrong position for that enemy unit.

Again, this will be up to player choice. The more realistic minded players will not want to have the über view because it reintroduces some of the God and Borg aspects which Relative Spotting works to undercut during the Orders Phase.

Steve

[ September 10, 2005, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[roqf77]

cheers.

[aka_tom_w]

Battlefront.com

posted February 28, 2005 10:10 PM

Guys, I wouldn't worry too much about it. We're planning on having various options for the game. If we find something is done for realism but becomes "too cumbersome" we can always put in an option to dumb it down. Dumbing down is really easy to do compared to making something smarter after the initial design is complete. Everything in CMx2 is being designed for full bore realism to the extent possible, with all less realistic options to be finalized at some later time. Of course we're keeping these options in mind now, it's just they aren't very important at this stage.

As for Realtive Spotting in Movie playback... remember that part of the benefit of Relative Spotting is to make the God and Borg problems less of a factor. In the most realistic settings that means NOT giving the player a complete and unfettered view of the entire battlefield all at once. Ever. By allowing the player to sit back and watch all the action happening he gets situational awareness that no commander would ever have and therefore... Borg and God issues. There is no arguing against this from a realism perspective.

However, arguing against this from a playability/fun standpoint... sure! I think the majority of gamers would want to have the full movie with all action playing back at once shown. So obviously we are going to support it in some form. And if you ninnies read my post better, you'd see that I already said this [big Grin]

As for the suggestion of showing both possible positions for a particular enemy unit... I think that won't work out in reality very well. It will likely create such a mess of disinformation that the player will be totally confused and frustrated by it all. More so than he should, and certainly more so than that type of player would want. I mean, if the player is saying "I'll take less realism for more fun" (fun is always a relative concept) then the last thing we should do is say "OK, here is how you dumb down the realism so you can have more fun. Oh, BTW... you might notice that it is really, super annoying. Enjoy!" [big Grin] Yes... I can just see the feedback from that feature now... and it ain't pretty [Wink]

Steve

[Zalgiris 1410]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

To stick with the Borg we would have to stick with Absolute Spotting. That ain't happening. Not even as an option (which I am sure isn't possible to do anyway).

The point is, however, not a bad one. Some people are not going to be (initially) comfortable with the more realistic implications of Relative Spotting.

And all of this will only be as confusing as we make it be. Trick is in the UI and we're all set on that one.

Hardware isn't the issue when it comes to removing the Borg. Restricting player control is. That's actually pretty easy for us to do. Just lock the camera to a Platoon HQ or Company HQ and bingo... no more Borg spotting problem. The game wouldn't be fun or really even any good if that is all we did, but the way to solve the problem is rather straight forward. It's just not a practical option from a marketing standpoint.

I hope that the BFCs aren't confusing their table top dancing and turning tricks on the game while on setting the UI for relative spotting!

Anyway, in CMx2 who's gonna be looking for their mother?

BTW Steve I think I just had a heart attack reading your last paragraph. Player camera view restricted to only the vision of units! :eek:

(It must have been a heart attack cos my hand only reached down my front as far as my middle chest pump!)

[ September 10, 2005, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

[Ardem]

One thing I would like to know, just say a tank crew is working with some infantry, in clearing a town, and say for a minute of action the tank crew is unaware of a tank on the other side of the town hiding, but the infantry have spot it, will it be possible to area fire on that spot.

If so we only have borg spotting taken out for the Tac AI stages but we really have it in when it comes back to plotting your moves.

Also isn't it possible for the infantry right next to the tank to jump up and tell the commander of the tank that is hiding.

I still got some question marks how itwill all work but not after and explaination I think I will just wait.

[Battlefront.com]

As it is, a point fire weapon (like AP) is just not a good thing to be shooting at shadows. In fact, in CMx1 Area Fire for a gun capable of fire HE means it fires HE. So the problem of a tank firing at another tank (it isn't aware of) is solved since shooting HE at it is a waste of time. It doesn't, however, solve the problem of a tank firing at infantry it isn't aware of. We can't do anything to prevent such unrealistic Area Fire except to eliminate Area Fire completely. And on balance that would be far more unrealistic.

Eliminating TacAI reaction to things it shouldn't know about is the bigger issue anyway.

Infantry next to a tank should be able to inform the tank about something they've spotted, at least in theory. The tank would need to be unbuttoned and not driving around (engine noise). Phones were routinely mounted on tanks (even current day tanks!) by infantry so we'll probably be pretty liberal with close in infantry support informing vehicles of what is going on. It is realistic and it emphasizes the realistic benefits to AFVs of having infantry close by.

Steve

[Barrold]

Up kinda late aren't you Steve?

These tidbits of the kind of thinking that you state can be within the new system as opposed to the previous limitations based on the old system are quite remarkable.

It is almost like a girlfriend stating the relationship's physical limits are based on the advice of a Bapist minister opposed to the limits based on the advice of Larry Flynt.

A bit of hyperbole perhaps, but the new framework seems to provide so much more flexibility and range to consider much more subtle nuances as well as an expansion of capabilities.

Color me excited with anticipation and enthusiasm.

Yes I had a couple glasses of wine...so shoot me.

BDH

[Zalgiris 1410]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Infantry next to a tank should be able to inform the tank about something they've spotted, at least in theory. The tank would need to be unbuttoned and not driving around (engine noise). Phones were routinely mounted on tanks (even current day tanks!) by infantry so we'll probably be pretty liberal with close in infantry support informing vehicles of what is going on. It is realistic and it emphasizes the realistic benefits to AFVs of having infantry close by.

Hmmm, this ought to be more of a can of worms than you might suspect Steve. I'm no expert on this subject but I think you BFCs are going to have to do your research. AIUI there were tank phones (usually somewhere on the back of a tank) that Infantry or their commander could use to talk to the crew to pass information etc. However AFAIK they where a late developement or at least the Germans had them, so I think, in Normandy at the latest while the allies didn't. :confused:

Now what the conumdrum is with this issue is that players and posters are going to want to know if they exist on tanks or not and therefore this additional capability might have to be treated like as with tank radios. I mean in the Unit Info sheet AFVs are going to need to be described as to whether they do actually carry an outside access tank phone set! :eek:

[ September 12, 2005, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

[Redwolf]

There's not so much difference between this opinion and normal consent.

Many people just have inflated views on what the new not-so-absolute spotting can do.

[Battlefront.com]

The infantry in Normandy found a way around the lack of inherent phones on vehicles. They either stuck one of the infantrymen on the tank itself or, more commonly as the war went on, got a regular old field phone set and put one in the turret and one hanging off the back. In fact, that was the way it was done for decades in the US Army since the support of phones on tanks appears to have been on again off again.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

There's not so much difference between this opinion and normal consent.

Many people just have inflated views on what the new not-so-absolute spotting can do.

Which opinion?

What normal consent?

sorry I did not understand the post of the comment

-tom w

[Zalgiris 1410]

:confused: I didn't understand Redwolf's post either tommy who!

Ah Steve there's the point, Allied Infantry had to still spend some time in Normandy learning how they could actually communicate with a engine running closed hatch tank. These improvisations didn't just magically occur over the night of 5/6 of June. AFAIK it wasn't for a few weeks before these techniques were developed and spread around.

What about for the whole period before D-Day, its going to be unrealistic, historically speaking, if there is no distinction between the function of the likelihood and the quickness of having close by ground Infantry spotting threats and this intell being told to a closed tank. Now also consider this in terms of representing the differentitation between the effect of these capabilities upon combined arms opponents with different means or levels of Inf/tank communication.

In some tactical situations this is almost just as important as to whether tanks have radios or not. How will CMx2 depict or manage the relative difference between mixed forces combat when one side employs better Inf/tank coms than the other?

BTW on a slightly related topic, I was wondering if tanks with Infantry passengers ought to have better chances of avoiding mines and of not getting bogged or throwing a track. AIUI looking out for obsticles and mines was part of what the riding escort or ordinary passenger Infantry were instructed to do for their bus ticket, as well as dealing with the threat of close assault or rocket armed enemy Infantry! Is this also going to be dealt with in CMx2 by some BFC? :confused:

[ September 12, 2005, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]