Tidbit about Fog of War

[aka_tom_w]

OK

Thanks for the clarity

this sort of helps...

"After the initial spotting, then LOS kicks in. So the Attacker during Setup will see various things no matter what the LOS is, but as soon as he hits "Go!" all bets are off. He might not have LOS to that thing and by the time he spots it again it might be somewhere totally different. "

thanks

it will be interesting to see how it REALLY works in the game...

(or the Demo scenario of the game HINT HINT!)

-tom w

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Does the Defender still see that unit WHERE EVER the attacker places it (EVEN out of the LOS of the defender?)

Yes. This simulates prebattle intel that might have nothing to do with LOS. For example, aerial observation, spies, intercepted radio transmissions, etc.

After the initial spotting, then LOS kicks in. So the Attacker during Setup will see various things no matter what the LOS is, but as soon as he hits "Go!" all bets are off. He might not have LOS to that thing and by the time he spots it again it might be somewhere totally different. The only Intel you can rely upon are fixed fortifications and the fact that if you see it you know he has it. Other than that... you're on your own

Steve </font>

[SlowMotion]

In the first post

"Scenario designer selects unit and toggles it to Spotted (probably different degrees of certainty)"

I hope this means that it will be possible to set a unit spotting level as "sound contact". Then a player could know that tanks have been spotted in some area, but not necessarily their exact position or type. The intelligence might have been nothing more than that: a sound contact.

Then the suggestion about purchasable "intel circles":

another idea could be that you could buy "intel positions". Instead of knowing what is inside some area, you would get to know what can be seen from some point on the map. This would simulate an infantry recon unit having visited that place.

To make the idea work better, these "intel positions" could be bought from inside a spotting zone that would start from the front line of your setup zone. How many meters towards the enemy this zone would go, would be a parameter settable by the scenario designer (a bit like no-man's area in operations).

[Midnight Warrior]

Sounds like a neat feature!

One very simple idea. Perhaps you can allow a player to selct a unit or two that he wants to be spotted and this raises it's probablity of being so. This would allow the players to try to employ some sort of decption plan.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, the spotting level is what I meant. Hopefully that can be done.

Intel positions was thought of before, but tossed out. Definitely won't work for QBs because in order to place you need to see the map. In order to see the map you need to be in Setup, which is when you're supposed to already know where the other guy's stuff is. And no, we are not going to put in a special Phase just for intel gathering, so don't ask

Steve

[Saukopf]

" However, the pre Turn 1 spotting is automatic and happens all the time every time."

Doesnt this mean that both players, especially

the defender, will attempt to mitigate the effects

of this concept by ordering all of their mobile units to move as far as they can from their original deploy spot in the first few turns? That sounds like a potential problem.

I can see it becoming a standard opening procedure.

Deploy your units NOT where you want them, and then a mad scramble to reach those positions "where you DO want them" in the opening moves.

That just doesnt make sense and if it holds true,

many players would strongly dislike the pre-intel stuff because of the situation it leads to in the first few turns.

Of course I may be misundestanding the whole idea.

[Caesar]

I can see it becoming a standard opening procedure.

Deploy your units NOT where you want them, and then a mad scramble to reach those positions "where you DO want them" in the opening moves.

That just doesnt make sense and if it holds true,

many players would strongly dislike the pre-intel stuff because of the situation it leads to in the first few turns.

Of course I may be misundestanding the whole idea.

And the second you do that you lose the cover bonus you get for not having moved. You also run the risk of being spotted as you move. I suspect that some players will do this and find it is generally not such a good idea.

The idea sounds quite realistic to me, that some of your units would be already known about when you are defending.

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We could do something for Quick Battles. It would just be a simple "this side gets to spot x% of the enemy's units, this side gets to spot y%". The choice of which units to spot or not spot would be randomly determined, perhaps with a tad bit of logic (i.e. fixed stuff has a higher chance).

We can't afford to make this anything more than a "simple" additional feature, so let's not get carried away with 1001 ways to make this more complicated

Steve

Not wishing to add any complication but using the "tad bit of logic", perhaps the percentage chance of pre-spotting could be geared to the type of battle as well.

For instance, in an assault battle, the attacker would, mostly, have a reasonable amount of intel on the defenders positions, so might get 50 to 75%. The defender, on the other hand, may have much less an idea of the attackers disposition, so may only get 20 to 30%

In a meeting engagement, which is more of an "accidental" battle, neither side would probably get more than about 10 or 15%.

Features like this, allied to relative spotting and enhanced C&C, can only make QBs better and better and, who knows, may convert some of those who currently find them poor fare.

[Dirtweasle]

This is a unique feature. I'm not sure I can recall anything like that in a squad based game before, very fascinating. Can't wait to see how it works in game.

[Brent Pollock]

Will the "?" value of a HQ unit affect the ability to be spotted by recce?

This whole recce issue made my top five "please change" list.

[Jussi Köhler]

Good ideas Monsieur Jim Crowley. That would definitely make QBs better.

[BFCElvis]

Very clever and simple idea that I believe I hadn't heard before. Sounds like it will add a touch more realisim AND add to fun. That's why you guys are the pros.

[Battlefront.com]

Deploy your units NOT where you want them, and then a mad scramble to reach those positions "where you DO want them" in the opening moves.

And that is realism at its finest Currently you can put something in a spot that allows you to fire at the enemy on Turn 1 before the enemy has a chance to respond. And that is generally unrealistic because if the attacker had done some recon they would have had a chance to spot the thing ahead of time. So if you pearch an AT Gun on the top of a bare hill, yup... it will likely be spotted before the attacker plots his first move. If the AT Gun is instead hidden in a treeline on the top of a hill... probably not since it hasn't fired yet.

Perhaps we can tweak the % chance based on type of battle. But it remains to be seen

Steve

[SlowMotion]

"Intel positions was thought of before, but tossed out. Definitely won't work for QBs because in order to place you need to see the map. ...

And no, we are not going to put in a special Phase just for intel gathering,"

Too bad. I think that the initial intelligence phase would have been pretty interesting. First buying a number of IPs, positioning them and then after pressing a button, discovering if anything was found. A bit like pulling up a fish net. Maybe once all possible features have been added and you can't think of any new features, you'll remember this phase thing and decide to toss it in. Like in Game_#2?

Another idea I had was that you could buy aerial intelligence. It would work like a plane flying over the map at high altitude. Because of this it would have higher probability to locate big objects like bunkers, trenches or tanks. Infantry positions wouldn't be affected nearly as much.

And one more comment to what Jim Crowley wrote about: could spotting also work so that units closer to "front line" would have higher chance to be spotted?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

I guess it depends on whethr you think intel assets (of whatever type) are distributed uniformly and evenly across the front (as Steve seems to think), or used as more of a focussed resource (which I do).

In practice, though, both approaches are used. It's a spectrum, and I believe the weight is at the 'focus' end. A patrol that goes out to observe the enemy is generally given a speific place to go observe (that hill, that wood, that bldg, that village, etc) would watch for all enemy acty in that area. An enemy unit that left itself open to aerial photography would tend to focus attention on itself and from that attention give all of itself away. Etc.

I don't think a patrol would cruise across the entire frontage of the enemy, spotting one unit, thinking that was enough, then moving on 100m to see what else it could see.

Jon is absolutely correct. Even if for technical reasons, BFC doesn't want to get into programming it this way at this time, I would hope that they would be willing to revisit the issue in future releases.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by dalem:

It's like lifting up Salma Hayek's dress and finding Penelope Cruz and a pizza under there too.

So much to think about!

Put down that pizza and step away! You pervert!

Michael

[MikeyD]

Has anyone mentioned yet that this feature appears to be something NOT mentioned in ANY of the myriad "suggestions for CMx2" threads? As much help as we imagine we're giving BFC they seem to be coming up with perfectly nifty ideas all on their own!

This feature willl come in handy particularly in Overlord-type scenarios where you've got to assault well documented entrenchments.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by SlowMotion:

Another idea I had was that you could buy aerial intelligence. It would work like a plane flying over the map at high altitude.

Minor nitpick: Most aerial recon at the tactical level was done at low altitude, like 1,000-2,000 feet, sometimes even lower. This was true even in Viet Nam, which is why it was so dangerous. The idea was to fly over once at high speed and snap your pics and get out before the light AAA got a bead on you. Trying to make a second pass over the same area was suicide.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

As much help as we imagine we're giving BFC they seem to be coming up with perfectly nifty ideas all on their own!

That's partly because we are flying in the dark and they aren't. Once we have the game in our hands, there will be a flood of "You should have done this other thing!" posts.

Michael

[SlowMotion]

About tactical aerial intelligence height:

I suppose so. They had to fly lower (the example I found from 1944 was at 600m) in order to see more details. I guess higher level flights were used with targets heavily defended with AAA or fighter defenses, such as important harbours.

The previous post mentioning "well documented entrenchments" makes me think about how reliable those documentations really were - in WW2 and even today. Can we buy things like fake tanks to mislead enemy spotting?

[Dirtweasle]

Can minefields can be spotted?

[Hensworth]

I'm bemused.

Say I get pre battle intel that the enemy have a column of trucks over yon hill. I can't actually see it, but I know it's there and the game will show it as if I did have LOS to it on the first turn.

Suppose my opponent now decides to move this column.

Do I instantly lose all trace of it ? That would give me intel I'm actually not entitled to. I.e. as long as I can see the units in their 'revealed' position I know my opponent hasn't moved them. When they disappear or go to generic marker (assuming something of the kind will still exist) I know my opponent HAS moved them.

Something I could not possibly know while I'm still on the other side of the hill ???

[aka_tom_w]

I too am bemused

perhaps even More Befundled

I think it "sounds" great (on paper, in a post you know what I mean), but I would like to understand it better see just exactly HOW it works in the game.

BUT...

it does sound like it has GREAT potential!

-tom

[Delyn]

Sgt_Kelly

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

After the initial spotting, then LOS kicks in. So the Attacker during Setup will see various things no matter what the LOS is, but as soon as he hits "Go!" all bets are off. He might not have LOS to that thing and by the time he spots it again it might be somewhere totally different. The only Intel you can rely upon are fixed fortifications and the fact that if you see it you know he has it. Other than that... you're on your own

Steve

does that help

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sgt_Kelly:

I'm bemused.

Say I get pre battle intel that the enemy have a column of trucks over yon hill. I can't actually see it, but I know it's there and the game will show it as if I did have LOS to it on the first turn.

Suppose my opponent now decides to move this column.

Do I instantly lose all trace of it ? That would give me intel I'm actually not entitled to. I.e. as long as I can see the units in their 'revealed' position I know my opponent hasn't moved them. When they disappear or go to generic marker (assuming something of the kind will still exist) I know my opponent HAS moved them.

Something I could not possibly know while I'm still on the other side of the hill ???

You're presuming that spotted units are represented by the actual unit, and not a "spotted" marker. I thought the plan would be for a "spotted marker". Even if fully known, the graphic symbol in-game would be the spotted marker until a unit actually gets LOS to it.

A neat alternate might be to have semi-translucent units instead of spotted markers.

Either way, works the same as it does now, just happens in the set up phase.

Typis' quote suggests that actual units would be on map during set up, then disappear altogether after set up - so any units after set up would be only those in LOS.

[Hensworth]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

You're presuming that spotted units are represented by the actual unit, and not a "spotted" marker. I thought the plan would be for a "spotted marker". Even if fully known, the graphic symbol in-game would be the spotted marker until a unit actually gets LOS to it.

A neat alternate might be to have semi-translucent units instead of spotted markers.

It makes no difference how they appear. The point I'm making is about the extra intel on the movement or the staying put of them.

Either way, works the same as it does now, just happens in the set up phase.

Typis' quote suggests that actual units would be on map during set up, then disappear altogether after set up - so any units after set up would be only those in LOS.

How can that be when Steve said the unit's position will be revealed no matter where the opposing player puts it ? Surely he must place it before the game reveals where he placed it ?