Relative Spotting revisited

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Tom, you are basically correct. Steve said it himself: "Relative Spotting is far more realistic than Absolute Spotting. But it isn't perfect since the Human is allowed to interact with all units using one shared "conciousness".

Relative spotting is a significant improvement but it is not the Ultimate In Realism that some here seem to be expecting. As long as each side is controlled by a single player there is no way around the "shared conciousness/God's eye view" issue unless you are willing go give over significantly more control of your forces to the AI. BTS does not seem willing to do this and I for one am quite happy about that. It could be argued that doing so would be more realistic but who cares about realism if the game is a bore to play?

Thanks for your comments and reply

" there is no way around the "shared conciousness/God's eye view" issue unless you are willing go give over significantly more control of your forces to the AI. BTS does not seem willing to do this and I for one am quite happy about that. It could be argued that doing so would be more realistic but who cares about realism if the game is a bore to play?"

I do not believe the game would ever degenerate into a bore to play if there were additional features like SOP's and a more extreme FOW setting and TAC AI that you could trust when your units were out of C&C were added to CM II.

I am sure that game would NOT be a bore to play.

I know BTS will never let it be a bore to play

-tom w

[ April 22, 2002, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Captain Wacky:

Grogs. They'll suffer through a crappy but realistic game sheerly out of some mysteriously deep sense of "duty" towards realism, but not necessarily the game itself

Heh, I know what you mean, but ironically Kip and Andreas are 2 of the groggiest grogs around here but they seem to get it.

[ April 22, 2002, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I do not believe the game would ever degenerate into a bore to play if there were additional features like SOP's and a more extreme FOW setting and TAC AI that you could trust when your units were out of C&C I am sure the game would NOT be a bore to play.

I'm all for SOPs and extereme FOW and better TacAI(as is BTS, btw), but none of that is a substitute for the player feeling a connection between his decisions and the results in the game. Realism is not an end itself but a means to an end: enjoyment of the game (often refered to as "fun" ). I will probably get branded a heratic for saying that, but oh well.

For me, and I suspect most CM players though I can't prove it, the more decision making you take out of the player's hands and give to the AI, the more distant and less involved the player feels with the game and hence less fun. The question is where do you strike the balance? I like the balance pretty much the way it is now.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I do not believe the game would ever degenerate into a bore to play if there were additional features like SOP's and a more extreme FOW setting and TAC AI that you could trust when your units were out of C&C I am sure the game would NOT be a bore to play.

I'm all for SOPs and extereme FOW and better TacAI(as is BTS, btw), but none of that is a substitute for the player feeling a connection between his decisions and the results in the game. Realism is not an end itself but a means to an end: enjoyment of the game (often refered to as "fun" ). I will probably get branded a heratic for saying that, but oh well.

For me, and I suspect most CM players though I can't prove it, the more decision making you take out of the player's hands and give to the AI, the more distant and less involved the player feels with the game and hence less fun. The question is where do you strike the balance? I like the balance pretty much the way it is now.</font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

You know, there is no need to fling insults about just like that.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I won't disagree with any of that except to repeat my earlier conclusion that Absolute Spotting is not really the Problem, it is in fact the solution to the problem of how do you let the Player control ALL units all at once.

I disagree. It is entirely possible to have relative spotting and still allow the player to control all the units at once. In fact, that is what BTS plans to do, according to those old posts.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I won't disagree with any of that except to repeat my earlier conclusion that Absolute Spotting is not really the Problem, it is in fact the solution to the problem of how do you let the Player control ALL units all at once.

I disagree. It is entirely possible to have relative spotting and still allow the player to control all the units at once. In fact, that is what BTS plans to do, according to those old posts.</font>

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

It could be argued that doing so would be more realistic but who cares about realism if the game is a bore to play?

Grogs. They'll suffer through a crappy but realistic game sheerly out of some mysteriously deep sense of "duty" towards realism, but not necessarily the game itself </font>

[Das Boot]

I prettey much like your idea - except for the level 1 view but to me the whole thing hinges on one thing.

Orginally posted by aka_tom_w

...the newer enhanced TAC AI and SOP's will allow that friendly unit out of C&C to engage in fire fights with that unidentified nationality marker, or hide or run away

If it could be done properly I'm all for it but I have serious doubts abouth the TAC AI. CM:BO's AI is good but no match for any decent human and by increasing the dependence on the AI I fear it will decrease the realism rather than the opposite.

Tue

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Das Boot:

I prettey much like your idea - except for the level 1 view but to me the whole thing hinges on one thing.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Orginally posted by aka_tom_w

...the newer enhanced TAC AI and SOP's will allow that friendly unit out of C&C to engage in fire fights with that unidentified nationality marker, or hide or run away

If it could be done properly I'm all for it but I have serious doubts abouth the TAC AI. CM:BO's AI is good but no match for any decent human and by increasing the dependence on the AI I fear it will decrease the realism rather than the opposite.

Tue</font>

[Das Boot]

Good point. I'm also impressed with the tactical AI's handling of vehicles but I still have some concerns. Adding a bunch of SOPs seems the only way to go if you want to make a decent AI, but how many do you need? It's not feasible to make one for every possible situation and if you don't, then what? Standard Operation Porcedures are just that - the operative word being standard. What happens when you experience the non-standard situation?

I'm not a programmer so I have no idea if I'm totally off base here, but I doubt it's possible to enhance the AI that much without having a Cray Supercomuter.

Tue

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

The Player still sees all, and knows all, and can direct his friendly units (which have not spotted the enemy) to fire or move in the direction of a unit that was previously spotted by a friendly unit, because the Player STILL has Absolute Spotting because he can still control every friendly unit (in C&C or NOT) and he still sees all, and KNOWS all that every friendly unit sees and knows (in C&C or NOT).

So what have we solved?

It solves the problem of all units automatically spotting an enemy unit as soon as one friendly unit spots it. That is the definition of absolute spotting. Under relative spotting friendly units can be in LOS of enemy units and not see them even if other friendly units can. This introduces a significant uncertainty factor into planning as the player can no longer count on a unit to engage the enemy as soon as it moves into LOS. It may take a short while to spot, a long while, or not at all. I would also bet that units in C&C with each other will be able to help each other spot to a certain extent not allowed units not in C&C with each other, which would add yet another incentive for the player to keep his units in C&C. This is all more realistic than the current model even with the player still having control over all his units. This question of whether the player will be able to manually target unspotted units with area fire, and how to prevent that if it is disallowed, will be an issue that will have to be dealt with.

Good Point and I agree with it. Since this "Grog Factor" is a very narrowly defined (and SMALL ok, tiny) market segement would it be possible to call this Fog of War setting "Extreme Groginess" FOW.? And make it the most DEMANDING on the player FOW setting?

I don't have a problem with any of these features except this:

The enemy units can ONLY be viewed by the player while the player has the friendly unit selected (only in view level 1, (?) that one may be a sticky point, maybe from any view level to make the game actually FUN and playable) that originally spotted the unit.

This just makes the game more difficult to play without increasing realism. The player still has the same information available to him as he did before, he just has to click all over the place to find it. PITA.

Keep in mind that CMBB already has an extreme FOW setting that may very well do much of what you suggest and then some. We'll see. I expect to see SOPs expanded significantly in the rewrite.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

I disagree. It is entirely possible to have relative spotting and still allow the player to control all the units at once. In fact, that is what BTS plans to do, according to those old posts.

With all respect, Vanir, what you say here, while true, is flawed in that you take only half of what has been said in this thread into account.

The things BTS said, and I am pretty sure I read all of them, will solve the small-scale problems within the turn, like the Bazooka that will only be shot at by the HQ that spotted it and not immediately by three tanks nearby who got the word fromt he HQ.

Your flattening of the term "relative spotting" seems to imply that there is a solution for the multi-turn event of rushing all your infantry right where enemy tanks have been spotted. So far I have seen no such solution(*), certainly not proposed by BTS. Solving this "upper end" of the problem without multiplayer with FOW between them would require very drastic measures, like zones of control for your companies and platoons, with heavy penalities for changing them. Very difficult to solve, very easy to piss people off.

(*) I didn't come around to read all of Tom ideas yet, sorry

[aka_tom_w]

tom says:

The enemy units can ONLY be viewed by the player while the player has the friendly unit

selected (only in view level 1, (?) that one may be a sticky point, maybe from any view level

to make the game actually FUN and playable) that originally spotted the unit.

Vanir says:

This just makes the game more difficult to play without increasing realism. The player still has the same information available to him as he did before, he just has to click all over the place to find it. PITA.

"The player still has the same information available to him"

Not at all..

The player could now be faced with condradictory or conflicting info and intel as each unit he selects spots something different EVEN it is is looking at the same thing. That is what I call a fog of war enhancement

I highly doubt very many folks here are interested in what I will now call Iron Man Simulated Relative Spotting ( IMSRS-FOW the Player only sees the opposing unit while the friendly unit that spotted it is selected in view 1)

Someone else here is keen on same idea but you can see enemy units while the friendly unit that spotted it is selected from ANY view, I was originally critical of this idea but it does seem like it would make the game MORE fun and MORE playable and still allow multiple friendly units to ID the same opposing unit as two different things which is in my opinion one of the strongest "features" of this suggestion in that it increases the FOW fun factor substantially

-tom w

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Das Boot:

Good point. I'm also impressed with the tactical AI's handling of vehicles but I still have some concerns. Adding a bunch of SOPs seems the only way to go if you want to make a decent AI, but how many do you need? It's not feasible to make one for every possible situation and if you don't, then what? Standard Operation Porcedures are just that - the operative word being standard. What happens when you experience the non-standard situation?

The cool feature would be what I would call boolean decision trees.

You have TacOps-like SOP, but several. At any waypoint, you can say "if this and that condition is true, they switch to this SOP". If you want to go further, you can also plot several alternate ways, and at the crossing the unit deciced "if this and that is true and that is not, then go way 2".

Should certainly not overdone, but a healthy dose would be great. I finally ordered Steel Beasts, which is supposed to have some of this.

I'm not a programmer so I have no idea if I'm totally off base here, but I doubt it's possible to enhance the AI that much without having a Cray Supercomuter.

A cray is a floating-point supercomputer, it is of no use for most "AI" related processing anyway.

Seriously, I don't think SOPs, even with boolean decision trees, would add that much CPU time, compared to all that shot resolution we already have.

And in any case, most problems we have with stupid behaving wargame units are not from limitations in CPU power, but either from underdevelopment of code, or from accidentially adding misfeatures. Usually the former is done right from start because of fear of the ladder...

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Your flattening of the term "relative spotting" seems to imply that there is a solution for the multi-turn event of rushing all your infantry right where enemy tanks have been spotted.

I have no idea why you think I am implying that since I have specifically stated otherwise in my third post on page 4:

Tom, you are basically correct. Steve said it himself: "Relative Spotting is far more realistic than Absolute Spotting. But it isn't perfect since the Human is allowed to interact with all units using one shared "conciousness".

Relative spotting is a significant improvement but it is not the Ultimate In Realism that some here seem to be expecting. As long as each side is controlled by a single player there is no way around the "shared conciousness/God's eye view" issue unless you are willing go give over significantly more control of your forces to the AI. BTS does not seem willing to do this and I for one am quite happy about that.

Tom:

Not at all..

The player could now be faced with condradictory or conflicting info and intel as each unit he selects spots something different EVEN it is is looking at the same thing. That is what I call a fog of war enhancement

I highly doubt very many folks here are interested in what I will now call Iron Man Simulated Relative Spotting ( IMSRS-FOW the Player only sees the opposing unit while the friendly unit that spotted it is selected in view 1)

Tom, I wouldn't have a problem with this as long as you could view all spotted enemy units simultaneously as you now can, rather than only in small groups at a time. That would be a real chore.

[aka_tom_w]

I firmly believe it is crucially important that we have a solid (and agreed upon) understanding of the exact nature of the fundamental problems of Absolute Spotting.

I thank Redwolf for detialing one such issue quite clearly:

Redwolf says:

"What I want a solution for is this: you are attacking with a wide screen all over the map. Lead elements to the left spot tanks. In CMBO you can immideately rush all your units, including all Bazookas from all over the map, to that spot. For me, that is one of the major reasons why tanks-heavy CMBO forces have few chances of winning against infantry on any map with decent cover. In reality, the tanks would first have more time to munch at the infantry in front of them, then they could prepare for the enemy armored reserves to arrive and other infantry would follow much later, piecemeal. In CMBO, you get a concentrated overrun from enemy infantry in a very short time."

I'm wondering how he would respond to these proposals:

How will it work:

The player must lose some control of units out of C&C. More than in CMBO but NOT complete loss of control.

Units out of C&C cannot give the player any spotting info that would positively ID any enemy units they

have spotted or are in contact with. (only nationality markers are revealed to the player by units out of

C&C) (the newer enhanced TAC AI and SOP's will allow that friendly unit out of C&C to engage in fire

fights with that unidentified nationality marker, or hide or run away) and you the Player "may" (or May

not) see the casualities and unit strength go down and you would NOT know what that unit ( that was

not in C&C ) was fighting with.)

(Hence, KILL all the opponent's HQ units and you have effectively blinded your opponent )

Units out of C&C are controled by the player somewhat but are extremely compromised by command

delays. (Tac AI can perhaps Spawn some NCO HQ units after the loss of the HQ ??)

All units, and Units out of C&C, could benefit from NEW enhanced command tools like Standing Orders

or SOPs, and the addtion of enhanced TAC AI.

The enemy units can ONLY be viewed by the player while the player has the friendly unit selected (only

in view level 1, (?) that one may be a sticky point, maybe from any view level to make the game actually

FUN and playable) that originally spotted the unit.

Of course every friendly unit must make its own spotting check to ID enemy units. (Given that you can

only see the enemy unit FROM the perspective of the unit that spotted it, it is possible for two friendly

units to positively ID an enemy unit and both be WRONG).

One friendly unit may see an opposing tank and positively ID's it as a StuG (from their perspective

when you the Player Selects that unit and therefore see only their perspective) and another different

friendly unit, across the map, sees the same (or another near-by tank maybe there are two tanks and

you the Player at this point cannot know the whole story) tank and Positively ID's it as a Hetzer (the

tank in question may in fact be a well hidden StuH they think they see or a Mark IV LANG?) From the

Allied perspective friendly Inf can ALWAYS ID Pz Mark IV's as Tigers, but CMBO already does that

NOW thats Fog Of WAR!

The player should ONLY see the enemy unit from the perspective of the friendly unit that ID'd the

enemy in the first place. This will allow for completely realistic conflicting reports in the early stages of a

battle.

Hows that so far?

Do they address that question?

I think the answer is it depends on whether the inf unit getting crunched by the tank is in C&C or not, then the player would know sooner and he would order his other units to that location to deal with the threat.

I'm still not entirely clear where Redwolf thinks the problems lies? What is so unrealistic about directing some AT units to the location where an armour threat has been identified? Is it just the SPEED with which the player now (in CMBO) mobilizes his units in response to the threat? It does not seem unreasonable (at least to me) the inf units now spot and ID tanks quite quickly, from the point of view of the inf my guess is they don't really need to know how to identify the exact model of the opposing tank just that there is one and it is firing on them. This info comes back to the Player in CMBO fairly quickly, then the player reacts by quickly mobilizing his units to respond to that threat.

Does the spotting need to be Delayed more? (I think not IMHO)

Does the Player need to be denied the info that the inf unit is under attack by a tank for a longer period of time (Greater delay due to out of C&C) (Perhaps?) IMHO

Does the Player need to have a longer Command Delay forced on his orders so his units have to react slower than they do now? (I hope not) IMHO

-tom w

[ April 23, 2002, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

[QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:

Your flattening of the term "relative spotting" seems to imply that there is a solution for the multi-turn event of rushing all your infantry right where enemy tanks have been spotted.

I have no idea why you think I am implying that since I have specifically stated otherwise in my third post on page 4:

</font>

[xerxes]

The real solution to the relative spotting problem would be to have a multiplayer TCP CM game. In multiplayer, each player would only be able to command his set of units, and would only have the information that his set of units had. All other info would come through command channel chat. Having this operate in TCP would mean you couldn't receive a great deal of detailed information over the command channel. Now if you made this a realtime game (heresy), you would really solve the problem.

It would be fun and very different than the way CM plays now.

Personally, I have difficulty getting blocks of time so I'd always be very interested in PBEM.

-marc s

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by xerxes:

The real solution to the relative spotting problem would be to have a multiplayer TCP CM game. In multiplayer, each player would only be able to command his set of units, and would only have the information that his set of units had. All other info would come through command channel chat. Having this operate in TCP would mean you couldn't receive a great deal of detailed information over the command channel. Now if you made this a realtime game (heresy), you would really solve the problem.

It would be fun and very different than the way CM plays now.

Personally, I have difficulty getting blocks of time so I'd always be very interested in PBEM.

-marc s

One important point here is:

"Personally, I have difficulty getting blocks of time so I'd always be very interested in PBEM"

If the average age on this board is 30-35 (I think that is the most recent statistc) then for most folks here (including myself) the multiplayer TCP/IP battle with MANY different players would all be a dream come true IF we were all KIDS or the "Idle Rich", or retired but we are not, and finding the time all together to play multiplayer now with ONE person on TCP-IP is challenging enough.

I think the problem of Absolute Spotting can be resolved without saying the ONLY way to do it is Multiplayer TCP-IP.

I'm personally keen to play against the NEW (someday it will be new in CM II ) AI with FULL extreme FOW and Relative Spotting if the computer AI plays by the same rules it will be one helluva GREAT game!

-tom w

[ April 23, 2002, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Redwolf]

Tom, mixed comments on your suggestions:

What I think would be reasonable for a CM style game is that a unit which is fighting in a position where it is way out of C&C is fighting without graphical feedback. You only know it is fighting, but not what, how and where the opponent is. All you see is "trouble".

Note that this is currently done when a unit is in panic. It doesn't give any information about the agressor.

Right now in CMBO this happens only for unit that are in panic because a unit that is OK would fire back. And CMBO's engine insists on showing you where the unit shoots.

That is what I think would be reasonable to break up - make it fight, but don't show where it shoots. It is a break from the current precise graphical representation, but probably a reasonable one - lightweight and giving a huge benefit.

Other somments:

- SOP would be a great help for virtually everything

- your idea to make correct and complete ID more difficult (by counting only reports from some units) sounds good and doesn't seem to cause other kludges. However, it is not a big step, a veteran 17pdr is still a gun.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Yes. I was posting before my first coffee and since I was out yesterday it Monday morning for me. My apologies.

I know the feeling all too well No problem.

This point of my posting was: what BTS was said is all for the small-scale stuff. This thread is kinda special in trying to address the larger scale problems of borgism.

I'm sorry, if I had realized this thread was "special" I would have avoided it Seriously, I understand what you are saying. If by "the larger scale stuff" you are refering to the god's eye view issue, I will simply restate that I do not believe there is any solution to it outside of multi-multiplayer that would not be draconian and piss people off, as you so well put it earlier. However, don't let my negativism discourage you from talking about it.

[ April 23, 2002, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Tom, mixed comments on your suggestions:

What I think would be reasonable for a CM style game is that a unit which is fighting in a position where it is way out of C&C is fighting without graphical feedback. You only know it is fighting, but not what, how and where the opponent is. All you see is "trouble".

Note that this is currently done when a unit is in panic. It doesn't give any information about the agressor.

Right now in CMBO this happens only for unit that are in panic because a unit that is OK would fire back. And CMBO's engine insists on showing you where the unit shoots.

That is what I think would be reasonable to break up - make it fight, but don't show where it shoots. It is a break from the current precise graphical representation, but probably a reasonable one - lightweight and giving a huge benefit.

Other somments:

- SOP would be a great help for virtually everything

- your idea to make correct and complete ID more difficult (by counting only reports from some units) sounds good and doesn't seem to cause other kludges. However, it is not a big step, a veteran 17pdr is still a gun.

"What I think would be reasonable for a CM style game is that a unit which is fighting in a position where it is way out of C&C is fighting without graphical feedback. You only know it is fighting, but not what, how and where the opponent is. All you see is "trouble".

Yes that is my point exactly:

Units out of C&C cannot give the player any spotting info that would positively ID any enemy units they

have spotted or are in contact with. (only nationality markers are revealed to the player by units out of

C&C) (the newer enhanced TAC AI and SOP's will allow that friendly unit out of C&C to engage in fire

fights with that unidentified nationality marker, or hide or run away) and you the Player "may" (or May

not) see the casualities and unit strength go down and you would NOT know what that unit ( that was not in C&C ) was fighting with.)

"That is what I think would be reasonable to break up - make it fight, but don't show where it shoots. It is a break from the current precise graphical representation, but probably a reasonable one - lightweight and giving a huge benefit."

yes that is what I mean.

Redwolf:

I am still curious as to your reaction to this question?

"I'm still not entirely clear where Redwolf thinks the problems lies? What is so unrealistic about directing

some AT units to the location where an armour threat has been identified? Is it just the SPEED with

which the player now (in CMBO) mobilizes his units in response to the threat? It does not seem

unreasonable (at least to me) the inf units now spot and ID tanks quite quickly, from the point of view

of the inf my guess is they don't really need to know how to identify the exact model of the opposing

tank just that there is one and it is firing on them. This info comes back to the Player in CMBO fairly

quickly, then the player reacts by quickly mobilizing his units to respond to that threat.

Does the spotting need to be Delayed more? (I think not IMHO)

Does the Player need to be denied the info that the inf unit is under attack by a tank for a longer

period of time (Greater delay due to out of C&C) (Perhaps?) IMHO

Does the Player need to have a longer Command Delay forced on his orders so his units have to react

slower than they do now? (I hope not) IMHO

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

However, don't let my negativism discourage you from talking about it.

Oh, if you know me you can Count on that !

-tom w

[ April 23, 2002, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Redwolf says:

"What I want a solution for is this: you are attacking with a wide screen all over the map. Lead elements to the left spot tanks. In CMBO you can immideately rush all your units, including all Bazookas from all over the map, to that spot. For me, that is one of the major reasons why tanks-heavy CMBO forces have few chances of winning against infantry on any map with decent cover. In reality, the tanks would first have more time to munch at the infantry in front of them, then they could prepare for the enemy armored reserves to arrive and other infantry would follow much later, piecemeal. In CMBO, you get a concentrated overrun from enemy infantry in a very short time."

I think the answer is it depends on whether the inf unit getting crunched by the tank is in C&C or not, then the player would know sooner and he would order his other units to that location to deal with the threat.

I'm still not entirely clear where Redwolf thinks the problems lies? What is so unrealistic about directing some AT units to the location where an armour threat has been identified? Is it just the SPEED with which the player now (in CMBO) mobilizes his units in response to the threat? It does not seem unreasonable (at least to me) the inf units now spot and ID tanks quite quickly, from the point of view of the inf my guess is they don't really need to know how to identify the exact model of the opposing tank just that there is one and it is firing on them. This info comes back to the Player in CMBO fairly quickly, then the player reacts by quickly mobilizing his units to respond to that threat.

Does the spotting need to be Delayed more? (I think not IMHO)

Does the Player need to be denied the info that the inf unit is under attack by a tank for a longer period of time (Greater delay due to out of C&C) (Perhaps?) IMHO

Does the Player need to have a longer Command Delay forced on his orders so his units have to react slower than they do now? (I hope not) IMHO

-tom w[/QB]

I didn't want to imply I have a solution. My example is what I think is the upper end of the Borg problem.

Why do I have a problem with this example? Because I am a tank player and people knock out my tanks!

No, seriously. It breaks much realism in decision-making about the deployment of your forces.

Imagine you attack with an infantry battalion, a tank platoon and you have an option for a TD platoon from regiment.

You make decisions about how to deploy your forces. You send that Bazooka team "Sgt Dingo" with the third platoon from the right. You know that once you made that decision, you Bazooka is away for most practial purposes for the duration of this firefight of 45 or 60 minutes. But in CMBO, no matter where enemy tanks appear, you can run it across the whole battlefield. Instantly.

A more detailed view: you commit you battaltion one company left, one right, one reserve. The tanks stay with the reserve initially. Third platoon from the right opens a gap where an enemy MG jammed and got overrun and neightbourhood platoons were confused about the direct of you attack. It reports back. You press your reserve including the tanks into the weak spot.

Enemy commander Modelchen observes the scene, sees the attack commit his tanks and second echolon on the attackers right side and commit his Panther platoon against the now weak left side of the attacker.

In reality, the commander of the attacking force would get the word about the panthers quite quick. But there are few thing to do with certaincy. He can call his Shermans to turn, cross the battlefield and strike against the counterattcking Panther's flank. But while he can do so in CMBO immideately, he would have lots of stuff to check in reality:

- did anybody in center spot AT guns, or mines? Even if the unit there are forward enough to know, it would take time to ask them

- what does he tell the tanker, exactly?

The problem is even more apparent with Sgt. Dingo and his Bazooka, who would be out of question of redeployment within 30 minute in reality. In CMBO, he gets his ass off within 13 seconds.

I don't say I have a solution, except for very radical ones like committing the CM player to platoon and company zones of control and heavy penalities like delays for changing them.

P.S. TacOps 4.x will have TCP/IP with FOW between players. And yes, people have great difficulties getting together (TacOps games take even longer than CM ones).