Tidbit about Fog of War

[Michael Dorosh]

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

This suggests to me that once play starts, any "spotted units" from the set up phase that are not in friendly LOS disappear again immediately until spotted once more.

[Hensworth]

Roger, got it !

I forgot the part where he said the defender must now setup first.

[Gpig]

This is going to be jolly good fun. AND it's realistic even.

Gpig

[yuvuphys]

oooo, I like...it'd really be great to be able to control the recon some, despite the disclaimer I'd like to be able to recon several different paths to advance through, and see what's there before I do it.

My biggest complaint about the current CM series, is the inability for me to do proper recon and *then* plan my attack. If you're trying to make a good combat game, intelligence is a key factor, and is just as important to an attack as the actual attack itself.

I'd suggest a simple option at the start-up screen which gives you the option of doing minimal, moderate, or agressive recon, and then modifying the chance of seeing enemy units at the beginning by some factor based on this. The drawback being that squads might suffer casualities from the recon. That's fairly simple to code, and gives the player some semblance of control...maybe a good compromise?

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

"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"

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

Originally posted by SlowMotion:

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.

Originally posted by yuvuphys:

If you're trying to make a good combat game, intelligence is a key factor, and is just as important to an attack as the actual attack itself.

I'd suggest a simple option at the start-up screen which gives you the option of doing minimal, moderate, or agressive recon, and then modifying the chance of seeing enemy units at the beginning by some factor based on this. The drawback being that squads might suffer casualities from the recon.

I agree totally with the user comments in bold made above. It would be a shame if BF don't see the inclusion and development of a pre-battle "Intel Phase" (of some kind) to be a huge opportunity to take the game beyond the confines of what it has been for the last 6yrs and expand and explore a new dimension to the game that could open up a whole new dimension gameplay.

I had thought about this kind of "pre-battle recon" thing before as well. Just like to throw in a few alternate suggestions/concepts just to keep people thinking:

Instead of being able to spend pre-battle "purchase points" on units alone, you have the option to abstractly purchase "recon assets" if you like. The more you spend (could be limited) the more accurate and detailed the "pre-battle recon report" is likely to be. It could even be in the form of a simple text report statistically generated based on probability after both sides have picked their units giving an indication of types and number of enemy units abstractly spotted units before the battle.

The opposing player could also perhaps have an option to also spend "purchase points" on "recon assets" that would effectively "counter" any recon assets (secretly) purchased by the other player. Perhaps both players might also have a probability of being informed during this "pre-battle recon phase" if any enemy "recon assests" were (abstractly) detected and of their strength, which would perhaps give the players some indication of how many "purchase points" the enemy player may have spent on "recon assests".

I like the concept of a pre-battle recon system that could perhaps include a probability of detection based on the distance the enemy unit is positioned relative to the enemy map edge, the terrain that unit is in, the type and quality of that unit and perhaps even the weather conditions/visibility range.

---------------------SNIP--------------------

<<< rant about the burden of having to code a CPU opponent to understand and play by any cool game features/rules we can think about transplanted in this thread: Victory conditons: possibilities + the burden of coding a CPU opponent >>>>

---------------------SNIP--------------------

Lt Bull

[ August 27, 2005, 07:11 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

[kipanderson]

Steve,

This is not strictly on topic, however, is there any chance of the attacker being able to have foxholes and such? I ask here because this thread is in great part about starting setups.

In many/most real world battles on a 2km by 2km scale both sides will start the clash from foxholes or semi fortified positions. This is a feature I particularly missed in CMBB with the frequent and often generous use of direct fire artillery. The Soviets bringing guns such as the 76.2mm/45mm up to overlook enemy positions the night before an attack, then giving over-watch fire from dug-in positions.

Anyway… the ability to use foxholes and trenches on both sides would be more realistic in a large range of situations.

Thanks,

All the best,

Kip.

[sonar]

I think intelligence can be handled in the briefing.For instance,M.L.R. 200m to front running from church on left flank through to woods on right.Inf plt. thought to be dug in support of m.g.located in farm 250m S.E. of church.Tank sounds reported behind point 302

this kind of intel is assumed to have been gathered by recon.All too often in scenarios you don't know if the enemy is 50 or 500m in front of you and a lot of the problem is the fault of the desinger by not providing a realistic briefing.

[SlowMotion]

I'll just add one more thing to this Intelligence Position idea, which would mean that there wouldn't have to be an extra phase before the setup.

Could it be doable if those IPs worked the same way as pre-barrage arty: the IPs would be positioned during the normal setup, BUT intelligence results were shown to the player after some delay (maybe a settable parameter)? It could work like the reinforcements message "Intelligence report has arrived." Then the player would check the map and possibly see new units.

If different IPs had different delays (maybe some randomness like in reinforcements), they might have different prices. And if an IP position could be locked and hidden from the player by the scenario designer, it could be used as a way of giving the player some new info during the scenario, instead of all at once in the briefing.

If the briefing mentioned that there should be an intelligence report within the first 5 minutes, the player would have to decide how to act on this. Does he want to wait for the report before for example moving some tanks forward or not?

Sonar:

IMO briefing only intelligence works fine for units with fixed positions. But if the opponent can choose positions, briefing's intelligence may be totally misleading. At least the unit position part.

[ August 27, 2005, 05:53 AM: Message edited by: SlowMotion ]

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Steve,

This is not strictly on topic, however, is there any chance of the attacker being able to have foxholes and such? I ask here because this thread is in great part about starting setups.

In many/most real world battles on a 2km by 2km scale both sides will start the clash from foxholes or semi fortified positions. This is a feature I particularly missed in CMBB with the frequent and often generous use of direct fire artillery. The Soviets bringing guns such as the 76.2mm/45mm up to overlook enemy positions the night before an attack, then giving over-watch fire from dug-in positions.

Anyway… the ability to use foxholes and trenches on both sides would be more realistic in a large range of situations.

Thanks,

All the best,

Kip.

Good idea Kip.

PS

Geared up for Roma?

[Tarkus]

Question : Do this intelligence feature and FoW interact in any way ? Will there be variable quality of intelligence available for the designer to set ? from, say, *poor* to *excellent* ?

Suggestion : I'm just thinking that if a scenario designer flag a unit as being located but then set intelligence to "poor", it could lead to very interesting results....

[aka_tom_w]

The elegance and sheer simplicity of this idea suggestes it is DO-ABLE and perhaps relatively easy to code.

Look at the idea and Steve's original proposition/bone again.

I think it will add a more fun to the game AND he has already said (basically) "Don't Mess with it!"

It sounds good to me JUST the way it is....

lets leave it be and SEE how it works in the game FIRST before we all try to "mod" it to what we think we want.

-tom w

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The scenario designer can designate units, either attacker or defender, as being "spotted". This allows CM to simulate, for the first time, prebattle intelligence in a very direct way. Here's how it works...

Scenario designer selects unit and toggles it to Spotted (probably different degrees of certainty). That's all there is to it!

When playing a battle the Defender sets up first. If it is a Meeting Engagement, one of the sides will be chosen (randomly?) to set up as if the Defender. The Attacker gets into the Setup Phase and whadda know... some kind God has exposed some of the Defender's units! How nice! Now the Attacker can deploy his forces with sure knowledge that the things spotted exist and are right where he sees them.

On the Defender's first turn the tables are turned. Now all the Attacking untis that were flagged as Spotted are shown, as well as any his own units have spotted on their own. This means the Defender gets to formulate his battle plan before issuing a single order.

On the Attacker's first turn he gets to see all the unit Spotted during Setup and anything his deployed units can see. This allows him to start his attack knowing, to some degree, what he is about to get into.

That's it! This should be quite a fun thing to play around with!

Obviously the scenario designer does not HAVE to flag units for prebattle Spotting. This is just an option. However, the pre Turn 1 spotting is automatic and happens all the time every time.

Steve

[ August 27, 2005, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Tarkus]

Thanks for the reminder Tom,

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Scenario designer selects unit and toggles it to Spotted (probably different degrees of certainty). That's all there is to it!

There it is. Boom. Right there. That's what I specifically wanted to know.

Cheers

[SlowMotion]

"lets leave it be and SEE how it works in the game FIRST before we all try to "mod" it to what we think we want."

Yes, there are so many new things coming that it's better to wait for the first game. The original desciption is a good addition to the scenario designer's toolkit and hopefully one of the new features that will see further development. Lots of possibilities in this area.

[Battlefront.com]

It would be a shame if BF don't see the inclusion and development of a pre-battle "Intel Phase" (of some kind) to be a huge opportunity to take the game beyond the confines of what it has been for the last 6yrs and expand and explore a new dimension to the game that could open up a whole new dimension gameplay.

Sorry... but what a bunch of crap. I think we've already demonstrated that CMx2 will be a huge advance from CMx1. And we still haven't told you about a LOT of other huge differences (this stuff is tip of the iceberg so to speak). This thread alone shows that we are pushing the envelope significantly outward. But oh no... if we don't take everything to the nth degree that is somehow akin to not doing anything to improve the gameplay. Blah... it's comments like this that always remind me how absolutely unreasonable people can be.

Everybody has their pet peeve, and usually 100 ways to address it. If we followed everybody's wants and desires here, executed them faithfully, you'd have a game in about 40 years that would probably require 2 years just to learn. Egos forget that they aren't alone with their requests, so kindly remind oneself that an indvidual's wants/desires are not cast out in a vacuum.

Rant about ungreatful and unreasonable demands over. Surprised it took this long to get one out of me

So, I will go back to what I said before. We are offering a feature that apparently few thought of. It will increase gameplay possibilties greatly. But it will be simple. It must be. And that is all there is too it. Period.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Tom put it best:

lets leave it be and SEE how it works in the game FIRST before we all try to "mod" it to what we think we want

Nitpicking one feature to death before you have the game in front of you is rather pointless. Just accept that there is a good, new feature going into the game. Will it be perfect? No. Few features will be. As with CMx1, CMx2 is all about "the whole" not any one individual feature. That sort of focus of ours is what made CMx1 great and it is what will make CMx2 even better.

Have faith grasshoppers!

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by sonar:

I think intelligence can be handled in the briefing.For instance,M.L.R. 200m to front running from church on left flank through to woods on right.Inf plt. thought to be dug in support of m.g.located in farm 250m S.E. of church.Tank sounds reported behind point 302

this kind of intel is assumed to have been gathered by recon.All too often in scenarios you don't know if the enemy is 50 or 500m in front of you and a lot of the problem is the fault of the desinger by not providing a realistic briefing.

Personally, I think this is the best approach, particularly if it can be combined with maps, overlays, etc. Very much preferable to the system Steve has outlined.

Only problem is that I can't see a way in the world of making it work with QBs, which is how this whole discussion got started in the first place, wasn't it?

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Sorry... but what a bunch of crap. I think we've already demonstrated that CMx2 will be a huge advance from CMx1. And we still haven't told you about a LOT of other huge differences (this stuff is tip of the iceberg so to speak). This thread alone shows that we are pushing the envelope significantly outward. But oh no... if we don't take everything to the nth degree that is somehow akin to not doing anything to improve the gameplay. Blah... it's comments like this that always remind me how absolutely unreasonable people can be.

Everybody has their pet peeve, and usually 100 ways to address it. If we followed everybody's wants and desires here, executed them faithfully, you'd have a game in about 40 years that would probably require 2 years just to learn. Egos forget that they aren't alone with their requests, so kindly remind oneself that an indvidual's wants/desires are not cast out in a vacuum.

You might try being a trifle less touchy, Steve. Right now, we are just brainstorming, tossing ideas into the ring to see which will survive. Mostly, we are doing this for our own interest and entertainment. We certainly do not see you in the role of a waiter with pad in hand, here to take our orders. At least the more serious of us do not. I do not speak for idiots, since I can't make out what they are going on for most of the time anyway.

Michael

[SlowMotion]

... and I don't think much brainstorming will be done if people think the game will be bad.

[Michael Emrys]

...Although I can appreciate that the discussion has wandered far into the nitty-gritty aspects of the game when BFC specifically requested that we hold off on that for a while. But I think that is inevitable. Trying to keep a discussion on track on any web board is like trying to herd cats, to use the old simile.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

This pic is entitled "Steve Responding to Whiners".

Michael

[stoat]

Criticism? I'll show you criticism...

[Battlefront.com]

Michael, note I only jumpped on the comment that quite directly said that the CMx2 will be pretty much a bland rehash of CMx1 unless we devote weeks of programming to do this feature the way some of you want it. That is the sort of arrogant attitude that makes me think "why bother describing all this stuff if it is apparently all beneath you".

And you guys can brainstorm all you want... but I have already said, from the beginning, that this is a feature thta will NOT be significantly expanded. I have restated this several times. Therefore, brainstorm all you want. No problem. Just don't expect anything to come from it. And for the love of all that is sweet in this world... do not DEMAND that we do something.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

And for the love of all that is sweet in this world... do not DEMAND that we do something.

Yep. I'm behind you 100% on that. Besides being boringly silly and childish, demanding is just rude.

Unless of course I have to resort to it.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Unless of course I have to resort to it.

Of course

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Michael