Relative Spotting revisited

[Juardis]

Originally posted by Juardis:

Suggestion:

When you click on a unit, have that unit see only what it can see. If it can't see it, it's either not there or a generic icon. This of course would change the outlook of the battlefield for each unit you click on and could be potentially a huge amount of info that must be stored. So limit it to platoons. Whatever one member of a plt can see, all members of that plt can see.

It seems my suggestion would be a good compromise to all that's been discussed. Click on a squad and whatever one unit in that plt sees, all units in that plt see. And you as the human player sees what that squad would see.

So, for example, the current system allows the human to see ALL that ANY ONE of your pixellated units see. If none see it, the human sees a generic unit marker (or nothing at all). Keep that system but modify it as follows.

Click on a unit and the game would render only those units that a platoon member can see and would render generic unit markers (or nothing) for those units no one in the plt can see. You as the human player may KNOW what is where because of your God-like ability, but all the squad knows is that 1) something IS there 2) something MIGHT be there or 3) nothing is there. To make it easy for the human to know what has been spotted by that plt and what hasn't the God-like view changes to a Platoon level view.

I think taking this level of coding down to platoon level would entail a lot of work, but I also think it would be better than what we have now.

For support units, vehicles, and tanks, then you could assume that whatever one tank/vehicle sees, all tanks/vehicles see. And support units can only see what they have LOS to or what the HQ unit they're in C&C can see.

[aka_tom_w]

Hi Redwolf

I'm at work and it is getting busy now.

I have read your latest post and will think about it more and re-read it before I post again.

interesting rant

re:

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

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Juardis:

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

Suggestion:

When you click on a unit, have that unit see only what it can see. If it can't see it, it's either not there or a generic icon. This of course would change the outlook of the battlefield for each unit you click on and could be potentially a huge amount of info that must be stored. So limit it to platoons. Whatever one member of a plt can see, all members of that plt can see.

It seems my suggestion would be a good compromise to all that's been discussed. Click on a squad and whatever one unit in that plt sees, all units in that plt see. And you as the human player sees what that squad would see.

So, for example, the current system allows the human to see ALL that ANY ONE of your pixellated units see. If none see it, the human sees a generic unit marker (or nothing at all). Keep that system but modify it as follows.

Click on a unit and the game would render only those units that a platoon member can see and would render generic unit markers (or nothing) for those units no one in the plt can see. You as the human player may KNOW what is where because of your God-like ability, but all the squad knows is that 1) something IS there 2) something MIGHT be there or 3) nothing is there. To make it easy for the human to know what has been spotted by that plt and what hasn't the God-like view changes to a Platoon level view.

I think taking this level of coding down to platoon level would entail a lot of work, but I also think it would be better than what we have now.

For support units, vehicles, and tanks, then you could assume that whatever one tank/vehicle sees, all tanks/vehicles see. And support units can only see what they have LOS to or what the HQ unit they're in C&C can see.</font>

[aka_tom_w]

Redwolf posts

"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."

Well we agree there:

"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"

I don't think that kind of structure or rigidity would be appropriate because perhaps this is not as big an issue as you believe.

"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?

(As it is in CMBO now those tanks can and DO get Whacked in ambushes in that same sitaution by unseen AT guns and 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?

(Are you trying to simulate command difficulities between different branches or nationalies?, In the case of the Germans I would think a strong case could be made for the fact that they had GREAT communication and co-ordination between units like that involved in a Combined Arms attack like you are describing)

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."

(BUT who is commanding Sgt Dingo? If it is the Battelion commander than it would not be long (3 - 5 minutes maybe? BIG guess) before that order came down to haul ass over to the trouble spot.)

Maybe longer command delays are in order? But I'm not sure about that one.

I was just trying to determine where (exactly) you think the problem lies in relation to your (our) objections to the way Absolute Spotting works in the game

-tom w

[ April 23, 2002, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[WineCape]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

So my point is that it isnt so much the SPOTTING but rather the IDing. This

is especially true for the attacker, the attacker gets WAY too much information regarding targets. The ability of all units to ascertain exactly

WHAT it is they are spotting is as much a problem as sharing spotting because that is the intel they are sharing that is SO valuable.

A game suggestion then is to bring down the IDing level but keep the spotting the same.

* Bolding mine

EXACTLY! Well put. This to me is the most elegant, workable solution for a 1-man programmer like Charles. Maybe work with MORE varying levels of ID'ing for units within LOS/out of LOS, distance and experience as currently in the game. Great discussion.

Sincerely,

Charl Theron

[KNac]

Tom sing me up or the URnEFOW (Ultra Realistic and Extreme Fog Of War) as long as its an option and not the single possibility in the game.

I will introduce a new question, time tolink up FOW and CnC? Which is your opinion?

Different AI/CnC/FOW for each level of realism or farce sizes, what do you think? Time to give the possibility of a better platoon AI (w/o deleting the possibility of micro-management in smaller units) for larges battles?

Time for a new topic?

If you

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by WineCape:

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

So my point is that it isnt so much the SPOTTING but rather the IDing. This

is especially true for the attacker, the attacker gets WAY too much information regarding targets. The ability of all units to ascertain exactly

WHAT it is they are spotting is as much a problem as sharing spotting because that is the intel they are sharing that is SO valuable.

A game suggestion then is to bring down the IDing level but keep the spotting the same.

* Bolding mine

EXACTLY! Well put. This to me is the most elegant, workable solution for a 1-man programmer like Charles. Maybe work with MORE varying levels of ID'ing for units within LOS/out of LOS, distance and experience as currently in the game. Great discussion.

Sincerely,

Charl Theron</font>

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by KNac:

Tom sing me up or the URnEFOW (Ultra Realistic and Extreme Fog Of War) as long as its an option and not the single possibility in the game.

I will introduce a new question, time tolink up FOW and CnC? Which is your opinion?

Different AI/CnC/FOW for each level of realism or farce sizes, what do you think? Time to give the possibility of a better platoon AI (w/o deleting the possibility of micro-management in smaller units) for larges battles?

Time for a new topic?

If you

Marketing would dictate that it would HAVE to be an option in order to have the new game (any new Game AND CM II) appeal to the widest possible audience.

It is likely WAY too early to talk about CM II but if we are dreaming about what kind of Relative Spotting and Extremely Realistic FOW we would like see, why not discuss it here and now as James brought it up and opened with an interesting idea that many other interested folks have added to and expanded upon.

ITS all just idle specualtion really but I think of it is an interesting challege or puzzle to solve

If you are interested in a new topic there are plenty of other threads to contribute to .

-tom w

[ April 23, 2002, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Again interesting e-mail from Muskin the Improbable

he asks me to post this

"I believe that there is two distinct issues; 1. Absolute vs Relative Spotting

AND "Quality of Spotting" as a function of Experince level, Command Control,

Battlefield conditions, etc.

They really are distinct and Relative Spotting does not address the "Quality

of Spotting/IDing"

A good aspect of this thread is the role of the player as commander, meddler, optimizer, gamey retard, etc.

In many situations, the player unrealistically optimizes targetting. In real life, a unit would not pay THAT much attention to enemy units further away than the ones that they

see. To give a friendly unit a command to fire at a target further away than the nearest enemy threat, should have consequences if that closer threat blasts your guys! they

have, in effect, lost fire superiority and should get some pinning at least for this unrealistic behaviour. So, we have consequences for unrealistic actions BUT havent denied

the player the ability to do stupid things.

It might even be justified to say that units could be limited to the NUMBER of units they could spot (and ID). Nearest enemy units having the best chances to be spotted and

then rapidly decreasing chances for farther enemy units This would at least LIMIT the number of units the hidden sharpshooter on the hill can report back. This decreasing

effect could be worse for radioless single man trucks and hardly different than it is now for a radio equipped HQ unit. Here we see C3 creeping in to the grand info pool. "

[ April 23, 2002, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Cameroon]

It'd be nice if we could get the distinction between relative spotting (aka Borg spotting) and the God's Eye View respected. The reason is that this thread purports to be about relative "borg" spotting. It's called borg because one guy (unit) knows, all the guys (units) know. What this thread has become, however, is largely about curtailing the God's Eye View "problem".

To offer one last comment about relative spotting (I'm less interested in the God's Eye View "problem"):

I believe it was tom (apologies if it wasn't) who asked what forcing the units to spot their targets gives you, since the player can still target something a unit hasn't seen yet. Apparently my earlier comment was ignored or missed Even if you (Player) say "Target that Infantry Squad in those bushes", the unit would STILL have to spot it on its own (if so coded).

So let's assume that Unit A is firing at Unit B. Some other unit spots Unit C (a higher priority target to the Player) during the turn, but Unit A doesn't. Unit A will not open fire on Unit C, obviously.

Now, let's say at the end of the turn, the Player tells Unit A to target Unit C. Ok, HOWEVER, Unit A still hasn't spotted Unit C. So Unit A is trying to acquire Unit C to fire at. Meanwhile, Unit A isn't firing at anything. You could carry this further, too. A unit trying to acquire a specific target (under orders) could be less likely to spot other targets.

That is not specifically designed to limit the God's Eye View, but it does make having the God's Eye View less powerful.

[aka_tom_w]

"I believe it was tom (apologies if it wasn't {It was me } ) who asked what forcing the units to spot their targets gives you, since the

player can still target something a unit hasn't seen yet. Apparently my earlier comment was ignored or missed Even if

you (Player) say "Target that Infantry Squad in those bushes", the unit would STILL have to spot it on its own (if so

coded).

So let's assume that Unit A is firing at Unit B. Some other unit spots Unit C (a higher priority target to the Player)

during the turn, but Unit A doesn't. Unit A will not open fire on Unit C, obviously.

Now, let's say at the end of the turn, the Player tells Unit A to target Unit C. Ok, HOWEVER, Unit A still hasn't spotted

Unit C. So Unit A is trying to acquire Unit C to fire at. Meanwhile, Unit A isn't firing at anything. You could carry this

further, too. A unit trying to acquire a specific target (under orders) could be less likely to spot other targets."

Mushkin the Improbable (?) (aka Deep Throat) replies:

I dont believe that is what Relative Spotting will be like. As you choose a unit during the orders phase, its perspective of the battlefield will 'pop up'. Only those units it can

spot/ID, will be shown. So in your example, it could not target what it cant see (maybe area fire but you get my point).

During the movie, all units will be shown and players will be screaming at their computers "shoot the guy to the left, shoot him!!!" not knowing that the unit cant see the guy to

the left. Or maybe the movie will be dynamic from a highlighted units individual perspective? Hmmmm Interesting.

Mush

[ April 23, 2002, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

So in your example, it could not target what it cant see (maybe area fire but you get my point).

So say this like it is no big matter, but it is.

All attempts to fix absolute spotting that depend on only shooting what the unit sees are futile. People will use area or indirect fire instead, if the unit refuses to give a target line to the target because it doesn't see it. And even without that, the player can turn or move the own unit so that it is guaranteed to see the desired target.

It fixes only things within one turn. This is worthwile, it is the bazooka example. This is what I understand Steve has in mind for CMIII, not more.

But when the combat phase is over, and the player plots, there is no point in not giving a unit a target option (and hence view) to an enemy in LOS. Because the player will use area fire instead, and it will only annoy the hell out of the player who needs to get the idea who cannot see that AT team to give give manual area target to all units in LOS. Much trouble for no gain.

Longer combat phases, which require more TacAI, SOPs and deciion trees would help, but that's a different game.

[Juardis]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

But ONLY IF they're in C&C!

is that what you meant?

-tom w

Ideally yes, but I think if you go that far, then you're modeling who has a radio and who doesn't. All I'm suggesting is a possible solution using the current coding. You the human see everything you see now. The game keeps track of what each platoon can see. When you click on a unit within that platoon, the game only shows you what that unit can see and what that unit can see is based entirely on what ANY unit in the PLATOON can see, whether they're in C&C or not. This will allow the human to have control over each unit but it restricts what the TAC AI considers a valid target and would seriously limit the Borg syndrome. I think to actually fix the "problem" would require that the selected unit be in C&C, but I think that's getting beyond the "compromise solution until the rewrite is completed".

As for area firing, I certainly wouldn't use that option because area firing is too ineffective at both killing and breaking the area target when a more juicy target does come into LOS.

[xerxes]

You can have really poor ID'ing today with CMBO. Just fire up a conscript slugfest. They can't ID hardly ANYTHING until they stumble over it.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by xerxes:

You can have really poor ID'ing today with CMBO. Just fire up a conscript slugfest. They can't ID hardly ANYTHING until they stumble over it.

Yeah! Stop playing with those gamey Regular troops!

Really, as others have suggested, you can't really fix the "God's Eye View" problem and still be playing CM. In CM you not only are the overall commander, but you're also driving that jeep, firing that piat, reconning those woods, setting that ambush, charging those foxholes, torching that building, flanking that Panther, calling in that arty, unbuttoning those hatches, firing that mortar, etc.

Without this "role playing aspect," the game would be much less fun.

So I guess what you have to do is come up with ways to inhibit unrealistic behavior. As an example -- and this is not a perfect solution, of course - you could have two types of area fire; "blind fire," and "area fire." Blind fire would be much less effective than area fire. Unaimed fire would count as "area fire" if a unit was firing at a sound contact, an unidentified unit (that the firing unit somehow knows is there), or fire at a location where the firing unit knew someone was there within the last turn, or fire at a building or fortification. Blind fire would be fire where the firing unit would have no clue that there was any enemy unit actually there. It would not be completely useless, though, because if two squads blind fired at a tree line (where an unspotted enemy unit was located) while the third squad charged it, as soon as the unspotted squad became id'd, or partially id'd, it would be taken under area and then regular fire. But it would probably not be spotted until it fired at the charging squad.

These penalties would not apply to artillery. I excluded buildings and fortification from the blind fire penalties simply because they were historically fired at blindly a lot, with some effect - in part because they are relatively compact compared to, say, a treeline.

Regardless of the God's Eye View problem, fixing borg spotting will make armor battles much more realistic, as you can't area fire with AP.

Whether a specific type of fire counted as blind fire or area fire would depend on what it was shoo

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by redwolf:

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

So in your example, it could not target what it cant see (maybe area fire but you get my point).

So say this like it is no big matter, but it is.

All attempts to fix absolute spotting that depend on only shooting what the unit sees are futile. People will use area or indirect fire instead, if the unit refuses to give a target line to the target because it doesn't see it. And even without that, the player can turn or move the own unit so that it is guaranteed to see the desired target.

It fixes only things within one turn. This is worthwile, it is the bazooka example. This is what I understand Steve has in mind for CMIII, not more.

But when the combat phase is over, and the player plots, there is no point in not giving a unit a target option (and hence view) to an enemy in LOS. Because the player will use area fire instead, and it will only annoy the hell out of the player who needs to get the idea who cannot see that AT team to give give manual area target to all units in LOS. Much trouble for no gain.

Longer combat phases, which require more TacAI, SOPs and deciion trees would help, but that's a different game.</font>

[aka_tom_w]

"Ideally yes, but I think if you go that far, then you're modeling who has a radio and who doesn't. All I'm suggesting is

a possible solution using the current coding. You the human see everything you see now. The game keeps track of

what each platoon can see. When you click on a unit within that platoon, the game only shows you what that unit can

see and what that unit can see is based entirely on what ANY unit in the PLATOON can see, whether they're in C&C or

not. This will allow the human to have control over each unit but it restricts what the TAC AI considers a

valid target and would seriously limit the Borg syndrome. I think to actually fix the "problem" would require that

the selected unit be in C&C, but I think that's getting beyond the "compromise solution until the rewrite is completed".

As for area firing, I certainly wouldn't use that option because area firing is too ineffective at both killing and breaking

the area target when a more juicy target does come into LOS."

received via e-mail to post here:

Mushkin the Improbable: (aka DeepThroat)

The current coding doesnt keep track of who spotted what. It is spotee centered, meaning that each unit is judged to be spotted by every other unit. So it is either spotted (and ID'd to a certain level) and thats it. The game cant keep track of who spotted what. The level of BEING spotted is kept on a units status. Anyone with a LOS to that unit can then shoot at it.

I like your idea by the way and it has merit. But I believe that CMBB will be very close to CMBO and CMII will be very different. My hope would be that BTS would implement some of the IDing type changes and include them in CMBB. I think I am going to try an all armor conscript quick battle just for fun.

I agree about the area fire also. I would never use it but would probably just use the covered arc instead. If something good pops up, then they get zapped. Its my experience that area fire seems like robotic behaviour and cant be trusted for most units. maybe it can also be made more realistic by the covered arc. That is, when targetting for area fire, a minimum covered arc has to be used. The minimum CA then distributes the FP along the arc instead of a point. Want to spray the whole house? Put a wider covered arc.

[ April 24, 2002, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Juardis:

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

But ONLY IF they're in C&C!

is that what you meant?

-tom w

Ideally yes, but I think if you go that far, then you're modeling who has a radio and who doesn't. .</font>

[aka_tom_w]

What ??

No news, comments are dissenting opinions on the Relative Spotting front this morning?

-tom w

[xerxes]

I was going to accuse you of using gamey green troops instead of max FOW conscripts but. . .I thought better of it.

[Caesar]

IMO relative spotting (by which I mean that a unit can only see and therefor shoot at and react to what it has spotted NOT what other units have spotted) should fix most of the problems of units such as guns, and bazookas etc getting immediately wiped out by unrealistic amounts of firepower the second they show themselves. Couple this with a certain amount of fuzzy logic in the spotting based on experience, direction you are facing, cover arcs etc and I think this should increase the realism quite effectively.

The cherry picking of targets (by which I mean two or more units spot a number of targets but only one can Id them correctly yet all make use of this information for targetting) is another issue that needs to be dealt with. Someone earlier suggested simply making the IDing of enemy units less effective. I don't think that this really solves the problem. By doing this you unfairly penalise a unit that does spot them well enough to choose their targets. Consider the situation where you have some AT guns overlooking an area at some distance and a bunch of bazooka equipped troops waiting closely in ambush. Some enemy tanks arrive. The guns at a greater distance would not be able to ID them. The bazookas that are close up could tell you that one of the tank drivers has gold fillings. With the above suggested IDing solution, either the guns can cherry pick or the bazookas have to shoot the closest target. This is no better than what we have currently. One solution is for units that only have partial information, that the AI takes over the target selection i.e. You can only directly target units that the shooter has completly Identified or identified enough to determine the level of threat to the shooter. There might have to be some caveats to this though, an infantry unit probably shouldn't have to know the difference between the types of infantry (e.g. paras vs glider) to be able to specifically target them. This would also hopefully help deal with some of the unrealistic targetting of units that are not an immediate threat in preference to those shooting at them. I like that idea that someone earlier mentioned of increasing the consequences of doing this.

As I have suggested in an earlier post, I think using CnC based delays to augment the spotting mechanisms above i.e. if a unit in CnC accurately spots enemy units then another unit that also is in CnC would eventually be able to indirectly using area fire for units that cannot spot them at all, or direct fire for those units that can spot them but not ID them. As mentioned by someone above, Area fire from units that cannot spot the target and completely without LOS should be heavily penalised (blind fire I think he called it)

Introducing movement penalties for units moving out of CnC could also help to deal with the God view issue where I as a player suddenly move all my AT assets to deal with a problem that in reality I would have had no information on. I have suggested this before but this discussion has caused my ideas to develop a bit. Platoon HQs should have to remain within a certain command radius of their Comapny HQ (varying dependent on communication methods, experience etc). A unit should have a limit to how far a move plotted will place out of CnC. Once out of CnC a unit move limit should be decreased. This, coupled with the increased movement delays you get with units out of CnC would severely penalise players not respecting CnC. Another variation on this theme would be the increase in delay as the plotted move becomes larger. This would be to help simulate the fact that the larger the move the more likely that it is the result of an order coming from further up the command chain.

[aka_tom_w]

IMO relative spotting (by which I mean that a unit can only see and therefor shoot at and react to what it has spotted

NOT what other units have spotted) should fix most of the problems of units such as guns, and bazookas etc getting

immediately wiped out by unrealistic amounts of firepower the second they show themselves. Couple this with a

certain amount of fuzzy logic in the spotting based on experience, direction you are facing, cover arcs etc and I think

this should increase the realism quite effectively.

The cherry picking of targets (by which I mean two or more units spot a number of targets but only one can Id them

correctly yet all make use of this information for targetting) is another issue that needs to be dealt with. Someone

earlier suggested simply making the IDing of enemy units less effective. I don't think that this really solves the

problem. By doing this you unfairly penalise a unit that does spot them well enough to choose their targets. Consider

the situation where you have some AT guns overlooking an area at some distance and a bunch of bazooka equipped

troops waiting closely in ambush. Some enemy tanks arrive. The guns at a greater distance would not be able to ID

them. The bazookas that are close up could tell you that one of the tank drivers has gold fillings. With the above

suggested IDing solution, either the guns can cherry pick or the bazookas have to shoot the closest target. This is no

better than what we have currently. One solution is for units that only have partial information,

Muskin the Improbable (aka Deep Throat) replies

Actually relative spotting will not stop cherry picking of targets! A quick example is as follows:

1. select an ATG unit, see what he can see. he sees 4 generic tanks lets say.

2. Go to another unit with a better view (but perhaps an ineffective weapon) and see what he can see. He sees 3 PIIIL42 and one

PIVL48.

3. Go back to ATG unit and pick PIVL48.

You see its the detailed info that is tripping us up.

Its been suggested that units be presented to the player in a certain order (that is, the game will highlight who gets orders for you).

Those with the least intel first. But this is a radical departure from present gameplay and would not be well recieved. I believe that

knowing the experience level of troops and many other factoids about targets has been acknowledged by BTS as something they

are going to address. Info that a commander couldnt possibly have certainly leads to gaminess. believe it or not, you are getting

way too much info. As other people have said, play with only conscripts and you will be surprised at how much fog of war rolls in. Is

that a split up platoon running at me or a weak company?

I think as people that have looked at books on tanks and built models and visited museums; we have more info than many grunts

that actually served. I think as CM players, we want to selct the targets. Anything that took that away would get howling protests

from the majority. If the game only allowed you to give orders like:

1. Destroy armor (select a Covered arc)

2. Destroy infantry (select..)

3. Deny area (mark area with covered arc)

It would not go over well. But its the coordination that is what makes the game unrealistic. So is it realism or fun you want? I say its

a compromise. Let people do gamey things but there must be consequences. An example is the penalty for firing area fire at a

location and someone opens up on you (especially someone close). In real life, you are screwed. You would be pinned flatter than

a pancake. the game should reflect that.

I dont quite follow this by the way..

The guns at a greater distance would not be able to ID them. The bazookas that are close up could tell you that one

of the tank drivers has gold fillings. With the above suggested IDing solution, either the guns can cherry pick or the

bazookas have to shoot the closest target.

Bazookas would shoot the closest targets in real life. But if the gamey player wants to take a long range shot over the tanks at a

quad 20mm halftrack then fine, but there should be consequences. Especially if he misses. Why would the ATGs cherry target? Are

you assuming that bazooka crews can share info? i dont agree that an infantry unit needs to report what model of tank is spotted.

The game reports too much info. Even with relative spotting, the game should not report so much detail about enemy units. Infantry

should just be that and vehicles generically reported.

[ April 24, 2002, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Das Boot]

Originally posted by Muskin

i dont agree that an infantry unit needs to report what model of tank is spotted.

The game reports too much info. Even with relative spotting, the game should not report so much detail about enemy units. Infantry

should just be that and vehicles generically reported.

I like this idea and I don't like it. I agree that the amount of info on enemy units makes it too gamey and that it needs to be restricted more. But I don't like that all vehicles should be generically reported at all times (if that's what you mean). For me half the fun is the visual side and I can't find a way to combine that with you suggestion. It would definately be more realistic but I don't think it would be CM and I doubt I'd play it.

Tue

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Das Boot:

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

i dont agree that an infantry unit needs to report what model of tank is spotted.

The game reports too much info. Even with relative spotting, the game should not report so much detail about enemy units. Infantry

should just be that and vehicles generically reported.

I like this idea and I don't like it. I agree that the amount of info on enemy units makes it too gamey and that it needs to be restricted more. But I don't like that all vehicles should be generically reported at all times (if that's what you mean). For me half the fun is the visual side and I can't find a way to combine that with you suggestion. It would definately be more realistic but I don't think it would be CM and I doubt I'd play it.

Tue</font>

[Das Boot]

Muskin,

I'm heading out the door for a long weekend, so I havn't given it a lot of though yet but your ideas sound good to me. The key point for me is restricting the GOD-mode currently used by players while keeping the fun elements in the game, and it seems to cover that.

Tue