Relative Spotting revisited

[aka_tom_w]

Muskin Says:

Pinned unit beyond C&C. You want to give him a movement order so you can see how long it will take (and then master mind a coordinated assault with other units). Firstly, there are no movement orders in his menu! You are restricted to firing and hiding and withdrawing. This "soft failure" isnt a total loss of control but a shade of loss.

Half squad out of C&C and out of its platoon HQ visual LOS. You give a sneak order and want to see how long it will take. Sneak is an option and you select it and draw a line. A ? shows up in the delay time. You dont know how long it will take. He is also, by the way, taken some fire the previous turn and may be under strength. Since he is out of C&C and LOS, those losses are not reported to you. The info pool is shrinking again. The attacker is slowly losing his borgiosity.

A defender has a cutoff HMG. He is out of C&C and LOS of ALL friendly units. The player wants him to target a particularly bothersome enemy squad that he fears (its a russian guards PPSH equipped unit that is getting too close). The player opens the HMG menu and selects a fire command. He draws a line but a covered arc appears instead! He can not guarantee that the HMG will select the bothersome squad because other enemy units also occupy the covered arc. Damn, he says and decides to withdraw and makes a note to keep HQs near HMGs in the future.

That Sounds GREAT!

I think the focus on C&C is completely relevant here. I truly don't believe that we can really solve some of the problems of lack of Realism that Absolute Spotting creates if we don't SERIOUSLY look at C&C and who commands who and who communicates with who and who KNOWS what and how did they find out, (i.e. did the Player tell them to LOOK for it? OR did they Spot the threat themselves???)

Pinned units out of C&C should be next to useless to the Player.

These are ALL great ideas that will take SOME control away from the Player when the unit is out of C&C:

"Pinned unit beyond C&C. You want to give him a movement order so you can see how long it will take (and then master mind a coordinated assault with other units). Firstly, there are no movement orders in his menu! You are restricted to firing and hiding and withdrawing. This "soft failure" isnt a total loss of control but a shade of loss.

Half squad out of C&C and out of its platoon HQ visual LOS. You give a sneak order and want to see how long it will take. Sneak is an option and you select it and draw a line. A ? shows up in the delay time. You dont know how long it will take. He is also, by the way, taken some fire the previous turn and may be under strength. Since he is out of C&C and LOS, those losses are not reported to you. The info pool is shrinking again."

Who is in C&C and who is NOT should be REALLY important in the implimentation of Simulated Relative Spotting in order to add more REALISM to the game.

-tom w

[ April 25, 2002, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[James Crowley]

I don't know who this improbable Muskin is but he is coming up with some damn fine, very "probable" suggestions on how to combine C&C limitations, some form of relative spotting and the "fun" factor of controlling all of your units.

Hopefully he is someone with some influence in the BTS camp

[kipanderson]

Tom W, hi,

I appreciate what you are after, and you articulate it extremely clearly. However, to me it always comes back to the same thing. You like to play the game as a platoon commander, not as a squad commander.

You wrote,

“Who has in C&C and who is NOT should be REALLY important in the implimentation of Simulated Relative Spotting in order to add more REALISM to the game.”

This is fine, so long as you are not playing the game as a squad commander. If you are a squad commander and cannot re-act to a threat, use your initiative, because you are out of contact with your platoon commander, it is “not realistic” if you are playing the role of the squad commander. However, it “is realistic” if you are playing the game as the platoon commander, as long as the TacAI is of outstanding quality.

My view remains that in wargames you play a lot of different roles. The primary role one plays is dependant on the maneuver units in the game. In games where you maneuver by platoons your primary role is that of platoon commander, but also company and battalion commander. TacOps is an example of this. However, in CM the maneuver units are squads and individual AFVs. In CM our primary role is that of squad and AFV commander. But of course, also platoon, company and battalion commander.

There is really no way round this. I am 100% sure that Steve and co. could produce a very fine platoon commander game, for all I know they will. However, it would no longer be CM. At the heart of CM it the exact, tactical maneuver of squads and AFVs, within the limits of squad and crew training/ability. Hence, delay times for some orders are realistic. Factoring in delay times for a limited number of orders that can be assumed to have come through radios to Soviet tank commanders also seems reasonable, but care must be taken not to assume the Soviet tank commander is stupid.

Having each maneuver unit do its own spotting, plus live team play, will help move towards the type of game you are after, while still maintaining CM as the same type/style/scale of game it is today. BTS may decide to turn CM into a platoon commander game. But from the posts that were quoted about half way through this thread I think it is unlikely, I agreed with what was quoted from Steve.

Time will tell. Whenever this topic comes up I always remember a line from Steve in a similar discussion about a year ago to do with C&C in CMBB, Steve clearly stated CM will “not become a command game”. But, of course, it is all a matter of degree, at the margins anyway. From what I have read the modeling of C&C in CMBB is spot on, but still not a command game.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. No one is after “realism” more than I am, my posts on this forum go on and on… about tweaks to add more “realism”. But I am happy to play the primary role of squad/AFV commander.We will never fully agree because we are after different things.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Pinned units out of C&C should be next to useless to the Player.

Units pinned outside of C&C already are of marginal usefullness. Command delays of over 1 minute are common in this situation and return fire is usually ineffective.

Extreme FOW is already a feature of CMBB.

Not allowing units out of C&C to target specific spotted enemy units in LOS would not make sense for the reasons Kip just outlined.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Tom W, hi,

I appreciate what you are after, and you articulate it extremely clearly. However, to me it always comes back to the same thing. You like to play the game as a platoon commander, not as a squad commander.

(snip)

But, of course, it is all a matter of degree, at the margins anyway. From what I have read the modeling of C&C in CMBB is spot on, but still not a command game.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. No one is after “realism” more than I am, my posts on this forum go on and on… about tweaks to add more “realism”. But I am happy to play the primary role of squad/AFV commander.We will never fully agree because we are after different things.

Hi Kip

Your points are also well made and I respect your opinion as well

You suggest I "like to play the game as a platoon commander, not as a squad commander."

Its sort of funny but I have never looked at it from that perspective. (honest) I enjoy playing CMBO and think it plays well and it is fun. To be honest I enjoy seeking out gamey loopholes and ways to exploit the game engine. I like to figure out how things work and where their strengths and weakneses are

The whole issue of Absolute Spotting is more of a theoretical puzzle I enjoy thinking about than anything else. This "thinking about" thing includes studying Absolute Spotting in a sort of analytical way to establish exactly what is not realistic about it, if you think about it that way and look at Absolute Spotting from the perspective of where is the problem and what causes the problem of lack of realism, then you can start to look at all kinds of things like FOW and C&C and the loss of control of units out of C&C and the LOSS of the recon intel as well....

Maybe I am in the minority here (who knows this thread seems to have a fairly narrow readership, what I mean is that only a hand-full of folks here have chosen to post an opinion) but I thought most folks who played CMBO considered the Absolute Spotting protocol to be the single biggest factor that made the game unrealistic.

So after James' post I started to think about it...

and the more I thought I about it and the more I posted here the more I came to the conclusion that if the Player wants to play ALL roles then the Player is then the cause of the Borg Spotting protocol because the Player knows TOO much.

For me this issue was NEVER an attempt to play only the role of the Platoon HQ and above, it was attempt to find out who knows what on the battlefield and how to model C&C more correctly.

For instance it is NOT just that I think I can't be the squad leader, not really, my theory on this extends to EVERY unit out of C&C and we need C&C for vehicles too. So yes you might lose some control of some light vehicles without radios as well.

I have no doubt most of the idea's here that I agree with will probably not make it into the game as Steve seems to be adamant that the solution to Absolute Spotting that includes some form of Simulated Relative Spotting will not include addressing issues of C&C, (I'm not sure how he feels about issues of reduced Spotting ability across the board and extreme FOW)

I am not suggesting my view of this is anymore "right" or correct than anyone else's opinion here, as there are plenty of good ideas and LOTS of opinions in this thread.

All I am really trying to do is look at how the game models Absolute Spotting and how that might be improved with some form of Relative Spotting. I'm REALLY not sure if I would actually enjoy playing CM II if all of the extreme suggestions here were implimented. For instance the idea of ONLY seeing the opposing units from View Level 1 while the friendly unit that spotted them is Selected by the player may sound good theoretically (I think it sounds GREAT theoretically and it would solve many Abosolute Spotting problems) BUT I suspect NO one, well, maybe a few hardcore Grogs, (perhaps out of some sense of "duty" it has been suggested) would actually enjoy playing this way, it would be tedious and probably VERY confusing and not much fun at all. I have no doubt that it might not be fun, I think it would be correct and I think it would be a viable solution to Absolute Spotting and a good way to impliment Simulated Relative Spotting, but if the reaction of this thread is any measure of how well that idea would be received by the majority of folks who play CMBO it should be clear that EVEN if it was a FOW option it would not be worth the time it would take Charles to code it up because NO one but a few grogs would use that option anyway.

It seems there is already be a plan or an agenda or a somewhat well defined concept, of how BTS will impliment Relative Spotting in CM II and I doubt any of these "Radical" idea's we are proposing for Simulated Relative Spotting and Extreme FOW that included loss of control of all units (not just Squads) out of C&C will get very far because these idea's (at least in this thread) seem fairly unpopular.

Oh well

its still an interesting theoretical challenge and sort of fun puzzle to think about

-tom w

[ April 25, 2002, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Again e-mail from Muskin the Improbable...

das boot writes..

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.

Thats the intent. Its really a BTS decision about what they think the game should be and what they can do about it. But you are the customer.

I really disagree with Kip. I think the ASL mindset and the whole "squad level" argument isn't true. You say that CM is not a command level game (whatever that means, I am not really sure) but I say it isn't a commando level game either. By that, I mean the on-the-fly, realtime coordination that CM players now accept as "The Game". Its like some SWAT exercise with all the troops having mikes clipped on their ears. I dont think that Kip is playing the role of squad leader/AFV commander but rather omni-micromanager.

I was in the US Army and command rolls downhill (along with you know what). Orders are given and they come from above squad level. Unless a squad is on a mission like a recon AWAY from the platoon (not a Combat Mission), there's very little free-agent activities going on. If the player was only commanding a platoon, and his info only came from the other platoon members (like suggested before), than maybe Kip's argument has weight. But, the fact is that he wants the shared intel from across the board. Kip's argument about needing more info than is realistic just strikes me as reactionary. I think it must be reiterated that people are calling for OPTIONAL enhancements to the game by the way.

I think that certain units, under certain conditions, should not be directly controlled by the player. I gave specific examples of "soft-failures" because I know that it will bring out the reactions from the control people.

Not allowing units out of C&C to target specific spotted enemy units in LOS would not make sense for the reasons Kip just outlined.

I also disagree with this. No one has said this. The units could target them. I am not sure what this is based on.

(tom Edits: I think some additional clarity is needed on the last two points, from both Muskin and Kip)

-Mushkin

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I also disagree with this. No one has said this. The units could target them. I am not sure what this is based on.

This:

A defender has a cutoff HMG. He is out of C&C and LOS of ALL friendly units. The player wants him to target a particularly bothersome enemy squad that he fears (its a russian guards PPSH equipped unit that is getting too close). The player opens the HMG menu and selects a fire command. He draws a line but a covered arc appears instead! He can not guarantee that the HMG will select the bothersome squad because other enemy units also occupy the covered arc. Damn, he says and decides to withdraw and makes a note to keep HQs near HMGs in the future.

[aka_tom_w]

Again e-mail from Muskin the Improbable...

Clarification...

Vanir said:

"Not allowing units out of C&C to target specific spotted enemy units in LOS would not make sense for the reasons

Kip just outlined."

Mushkin said:

I also disagree with this. No one has said this. The units could target them. I am not sure what this is based on.

Vanir responds:

This:

quote:A defender has a cutoff HMG. He is out of C&C and LOS of ALL friendly units. The player wants him to target a particularly bothersome enemy squad that he fears (its a Russian guards PPSH equipped unit that is getting too close). The player opens the HMG menu and selects a fire command. He draws a line but a covered arc appears instead! He cannot guarantee that the HMG will select the bothersome squad because other enemy units also occupy the covered arc. Damn, he says and decides to withdraw and makes a note to keep HQs near HMGs in the future.

Mushkin:

The hypothetical example is only showing that the PLAYER cannot target specific enemy units (But he is giving a general direction). The TACAI could. Its a subtle point but has to be understood. The player control has diminished from surgeon to traffic cop. Instead of a precise designation of target, its a general direction. He can only put a covered arc down of a minimum angle and therefore may or may not get his unit to shoot at the threat HE (the player) considers greatest. The designation has been fuzzified, if you will. The TACAI would then have to be trusted to do what it considers fit. The game already does override some target designations I believe.

I believe that no matter what, any player (especially myself) wants to win. It clouds your judgment and you dont even see the gamey things that you are doing. You need firepower to win the scenario and dont care who or what is doing it, or where it is coming from. In real situations, the units have more important goals, like saving their own lives. So when I instantly coordinate every unit within reach to shoot at a cherry target that only one of my guys can really see that well, well we all know its unrealistic.

Letting loose of the reins a bit is what I am talking about. Its anti-boolean and more shades of grey.

-Muskin

[ April 26, 2002, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Mushkin:

The hypothetical example is only showing that the PLAYER cannot target specific enemy units (But he is giving a general direction). The TACAI could. Its a subtle point but has to be understood

Oh, I understand completely. What you must understand is that currently in CM the player assumes the role of the MG gunner when he gives the order to fire, so there is no logical reason why he should not be able to specify an exact target unless you are going to say that the player is the platoon LT, not the sergeant or corporal leading the squad, manning the MG. This is what people mean when they talk about making CM a "command level" game: the player gives general orders to his units and lets the TacAI carry them out. This is a different type of game than CM, and one I would not like as much for reasons I and others have explained.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

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

Mushkin:

The hypothetical example is only showing that the PLAYER cannot target specific enemy units (But he is giving a general direction). The TACAI could. Its a subtle point but has to be understood

Oh, I understand completely. What you must understand is that currently in CM the player assumes the role of the MG gunner when he gives the order to fire, so there is no logical reason why he should not be able to specify an exact target unless you are going to say that the player is the platoon LT, not the sergeant or corporal leading the squad, manning the MG. This is what people mean when they talk about making CM a "command level" game: the player gives general orders to his units and lets the TacAI carry them out. This is a different type of game than CM, and one I would not like as much for reasons I and others have explained.</font>

[Redwolf]

Just to explain why I'm silent for some time now:

I think that for CM, and what it tries to do, there can be no better fix that the "small" fix. That is that within one turn a spotted unit only comes under fire from units which fairly spotted it themself, not by passing the word within the turn.

Inter-turn there is few to be done because of area and indirect fire that the player may execute.

I don't see any solution to the "whole force rediction like a swarm of herrings" that wouldn't destroy CM gameplay.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

This has been an interesting thread. However, in very long threads one always reaches the point when we all start to repeat ourselves, this point has probably been reached so I will just make a few last points in no particular order.

1)What is a command game? A command game is a game in which the most junior role you play is “above” the level of the manoeuvre units. In CM the manoeuvre units are squads and individual AFVs; so in a command game you would give up the role of squad and AFV commander and play as platoon commander and above. This would have a lot of implications that have been discussed already. Such as spotting.

2)What can this type of computer wargames do? I subscribe to a number of military journals, one of which is the in house US Army “Armor” magazine. They often review wargames, both those used by the military and commercial games. The US Army view is that wargames, such as TacOps, teach tactics in a time period, and at a cost, that no other media can match. Put two captains to playing head to head TacOps and they learn tactics almost immediately. Lecturers can also use wargames such as TacOps to illustrate and teach tactics. This is also my view. CM does not simulate C&C very well, nor is it ever likely to. But it is a stunningly realistic “tactical” simulation. So good it is a form of military history. The exact manoeuvre of squads and AFVs is what it is all about. Do not expect too much more from it. Wargames, at this scale, cannot deliver much more.

3)Remember the primary role. The primary role in CM is that of squad and AFV commander. Remove that, and much of the tactical depth and detail will go. As will much of the immersion.

4)I do not play FPS or SWAT type games. The reason I do not is that, in my view, one can only simulate a scale below CM “in the doing”. By this I mean that in order to simulate a scale below CM you have to get out there an go for a run in the woods, shoot up the range, do your battle drills, play force-on-force games with laser assisted weapons, and so…. Computers cannot model it realistically. Even the most realistic, such as Operation Flashpoint and Ghost Recon, are not realistic enough for me. CM, Steel Beasts, TacOps and Airborne Assault are the only current games that pass my test for realism. But, of course, we all have our own views on this.

5)Changes that will help Tom W and Muskin. It is worth repeating that there are changes on the way that will greatly help the aims of Tom W and Muskin, but without turning the game into a command game. a) Live team play. Each unit doing its own spotting. c) More realistic FOW. Together they will make a big difference.

All good fun, have just about said all I can on this subject for now. Vanir Ausf B and I are lucky in that we have the style of game we want. As someone said, BTS may introduce a “Platoon Commander” option, along the same lines as more extreme FOW. Then Tom W and Muskin would also be happy.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. CM does simulate moral, training, experience and troop quality very well, in my view, but not C&C. This is not a criticism as I do not believe one can model C&C very realistically in this type of game. You do need a command game for C&C modelling. From what I read about CMBB it will be close to perfect!

[ April 26, 2002, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

[aka_tom_w]

First off before you read this, let me state (again) Muskin is some person who I don't know AT ALL who sends me e-mail and asks me to post here.

I have no idea who he/she (?) is

If you have any clue who this person sounds like you think you know what other identity they might go by please e-mail me or post your thoughts here.

I'm concerned some of you might think I have spontaneously developed Multiple Personalities or I'm prone to delusion or something wierd like that.

Anyway (my rant aside) here is his last post:

From Muskin

aka_tom_w says:

"If the player is the MG gunner, the Squad Leader, the Jeep driver, the Tank TC, the Arty Spotter, the Company CO AND the Platoon HQ, then the Player is the CAUSE of the Borg-Like Absolute Spotting problem because the Player knows ALL, sees All and Commands All."

Muskin:

Exactly. Unless BTS makes a multiplayer game where each player only commands a platoon or less, there is no resolution to the BORG being the HUMAN'S fault. The game should not feed the Borg.

DO NOT FEED THE BORG! It is my new motto.

There will always be the people that like things the way they are. There are always people that like things a little differently. I haven't read that many posts from people demanding that the game go back to rev 1.1. I also feel that the majority play the game on full FOW and will move to Extreme FOW once CMBB comes out. Who knows if they wouldnt go for Super-Extremely Realistic Anti-Borg FOW. (tom edits: SERA-B FOW )

In the HMG example I gave, I never said that the russian PPSH unit was the greatest threat TO THE HMG! It was the greatest threat to the players agenda. I wonder if some people want a TACAI at all? Maybe the TACAI can be a variable setting? A slider that the player can preset before the battle (from 'take control' to 'follow orders robot'). maybe it can be set for each platoon lets say.

I was a squad leader (well mostly assistant SL but also SL) and most actions I would take were really drills. Preset, undserstood actions that I could holler out and the troopies' **** would snap to action. It was all from the platoon commander's direction that this flowed and his actions flowed from the Comp CO (mostly top). Its a team effort

and loose cannons are discouraged because they endanger the group effort. My contention is that most of these drills can easily be performed by the TACAI. Most movement orders are really 'Command Decisions' and aren't within the realm of the TACAI.

Muskin

[ April 26, 2002, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[U8led]

Question:

Do units in C&C spot and ID better then the same units out of C&C in the current game?

And if so, do any of the HQ bonuses (possibly combat bonus) apply to spotting and ID?

If units out of C&C had a substantialy reduced positive ID range would that help Borg ID?

U8led

[xerxes]

Well at least the disagreement has crystallized. Some players LIKE total control, some players think total control make the game very unrealistic. Both views are understandable, it's part of the old micromanagement debate.

Personally, I would prefer the limited C&C approach that takes away micromanagement when out of C&C, to me that makes sense and adds to the game (significantly). This could be a setting that is part of the FOW.

I believe most players will use max fog of war and rarity in CMBB.

-marc s

-marc s

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by U8led:

Question:

Do units in C&C spot and ID better then the same units out of C&C in the current game?

And if so, do any of the HQ bonuses (possibly combat bonus) apply to spotting and ID?

If units out of C&C had a substantialy reduced positive ID range would that help Borg ID?

U8led

These are GOOD questions !

I'm not sure anyone here REALLY knows the answers.

-tom w

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

BUT then why are there command delays in CMBO?

WHY do we really want to try to keep our squads within command radius?

I answered this question in my first post.

So then what has that implimentation of Simulated Relative Spotting achieved?

I answered this earlier as well.

I would (again) humbly suggest that anyone who is interested in playing ALL roles and commanding ALL units (EVEN with the BTS concept of Relative Spotting) is actually condoning the "BORG-Like Swarming Units Response" (B-LSR) to an enemy threat.

I can live with that.

Redwolf:

I think that for CM, and what it tries to do, there can be no better fix that the "small" fix. That is that within one turn a spotted unit only comes under fire from units which fairly spotted it themself, not by passing the word within the turn.

Inter-turn there is few to be done because of area and indirect fire that the player may execute.

I don't see any solution to the "whole force rediction like a swarm of herrings" that wouldn't destroy CM gameplay.

I completely agree. Even the major changes being proposed here by some would only lessen the god's eye "problem" marginally. The player would still know everything all his units knew, it would just limit his ability to act on it by distancing the player from the decision making. In truth, the only way to 100% remove the god's eye issue entirely is for every unit in the game to be controled by a seperate player... or the AI. Neither will ever happen but the multi-multiplayer feature in the rewrite will be something to look forward to.

Kip:

Yep.

[ April 26, 2002, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by xerxes:

Personally, I would prefer the limited C&C approach that takes away micromanagement when out of C&C, to me that makes sense and adds to the game (significantly). This could be a setting that is part of the FOW.

I think there is not so much player disagreement here, as technical difficulties.

Limits in C&C only work when you have a useful mix of TacAI, SOPs and planning with multiple branches of orders (received Steel beasts yesterday, BTW, will post something later).

We have never seen a game with a really sophisticated mix of these. So far some players who like a more abstract level are willing to live with the currently available mix and accept seeing very stupid moves on part of their units. Other players hate such crap and want control for themself. But that doesn't mean all these players actually want the micromanagement. Some want the micromanagement, other would prefer more autonomous units if thoese weren't ending up being morons.

In any case, I think a game with optional detailed control won't be a good solution, since usually you will have the player controlling more come out better. Both (all) players most be forced to command on the same level to get fun gameplay.

Except, and we are back to my pet feature again, we get a game where we can load our own TacAI or generally AI.

It will be interesting how AA turn out to be. It allows a choice of levels and I am curious how superiour those players will be who do everything themself. I seem some indications things require handwork (like the Tiger company charging alone into the infantry defense), but I also think think the game scale and consept are favourable to succeed in this regard. I'm curious.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by U8led:

Question:

Do units in C&C spot and ID better then the same units out of C&C in the current game?

And if so, do any of the HQ bonuses (possibly combat bonus) apply to spotting and ID?

If units out of C&C had a substantialy reduced positive ID range would that help Borg ID?

U8led

Does anyone here know (for certain) any of the answers to these questions. I could make some guesses but I'm not sure they would be right.

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

Oh my God but this is a really big thread

Folks, the crux of the issue is this...

Do people want a Command Style, Micromanagement Style, or Multi-Level Style game? These are terms I made up to illustrate the three major groupings. I define each as such:

1. Command Style - you are in ONE definite position of command. You can only influence the battlefield as that one command position would allow in the real world. More importantly, all subordinate units under your command would behave 100% autonomously from your will unless you were able to realistically give them "orders". I am not just talking about radio or messanger contact, but chain of command.

A Major does NOT go and order some buck private to move his MG to a better spot. He orders a Captain to set up a certain type of position in a certain location ("set up a defensive line along the north side of Hill 345"), the Captain then issues more specific commands to his LTs. ("1st Platoon go to that stand of trees, 2nd Platoon down thee road a click, 3rd Platoon deploy to 2nd's right), then each LT gives orders to his SGTs to deploy a little bit more specifically ("1st Squad, take that wall over there, 2nd Squad see if that house has a good field of fire on that gully over there, 3rd Squad go over there and see what you can do about covering that road junction"), and then each SGT in turn yells at various peeons to get moving to a VERY specific location ("behind that tree, numbnuts! Smitty!! Damn your soul... get that MG set up pronto behind that boulder facing that way or I'll tapdance on your butt for the rest of the day").

Now, in such a system the Major (that would be you!) does not know or even care about these details. That is called deligation of responsibility and initiative, which is what every modern armed force is trained around doing. The Major's responsibilities are to keep in touch with his neighboring formations and higher HQ, requisitioning stuff (units, supplies, guns, etc.) to get his mission accomplished, and making sure everything is running smoothly before, during, and after contact with the enemy. In non combat situations there are a LOT more responsibilities than that, but we are only focusing on the combat aspect.

What each unit under his command can or can not see, shoot at, or deal with is NOT the Major's direct concern. It is the direct concern of the unit in question and its HQ. The Major is, of course, trying to get as much information as possible so he can best lead the battle, but he doesn't care a hoot if there is an enemy squad 203.4 meters and closing on 1st Squad, 3rd Platoon, E Company. At least specifically he doesn't care.

So there you have it. This is how REAL combat works in terms of C&C. There is absolutely no way to simulate the reality of the battlefield without taking the player's mits 99% off direct control of units.

2. Micromanagement Style - You read all of the above, correct? Well, forget about it A Mircormanagement style game doesn't give a hoot about command and control aspects of warfare. You get some units, you use units as you see fit. When you click on one of the units you can order it to do whatever the heck you want without any thoughts about command and control. I would even include games with very primative attempts at C&C being lumped into this group.

3. Multi-Level Style - The player is neither a single commander nor an über micromanager. Orders can be given to any unit, but those orders and behaviors are influenced, to some degree or another, by Command and Control rules. In other words, you CAN order that individual MG to move 2.5 meters to the left, but you can not do this for "free". Some set of rules are set up to make such an order be more or less effective depending on the circumstances (in/out C&C, good/poor morale, good/poor experience, etc). The player is therefore still has far more flexability than a single commander would ever have, but not total and utter control in any and all circumstances.

Examples of each game...

Command Style - I know of no commercial wargame in existance that does this type of simulation. A game like the upcoming Airborne Assault comes VERY close, but even that one doesn't limit you to one command position with only the ability to see and affect the action as that one position would allow.

Micromanagement Style - best example I can give you guys is something like Panzer General or Close Combat. In both of these games you could order your units to do whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted without the slightest interference in terms of command decisions.

Multi-Level Style - Combat Mission and Steel Panthers come to mind. The original system in Steel Panthers was quite simplistic compared to Combat Mission's, but both sought to penalize units which lacked C&C with their higher HQs. Combat Mission took many previous game concepts a few steps further, as well as adding a few new ones of its own. Some games, like Combat Mission, lean more towards Command Style while others, like Airborne Assault go even further. Other games, like Steel Panthers, lean more towards Micromanagement Style.

In terms of realism, Command Style is the highest ideal, Micromanagement the lowest, and Multi-Level somewhere inbetween. In terms of playability, Micromanagement is the highest ideal, Command Style the lowest, and Multi-Level somewhere inbetween.

In terms of proven trackrecord of being fun, the pie is split between Micromanagement and Multi-Level. No wargame has ever fit the definition of Command Style, so it has no reecord. We are not going to try and be the first because we would rather watch paint dry than play such a game. And we are very sure that 99% of our customers would agree. And that 1% would most likely not really wind up liking the game anyway. Sometimes people need to be careful about what they ask for because they just might get it

Command Style games do not exist for a reason. They are nearly impossible to make (the AI necessary boggles the mind!) and the gameplay value near non existant. So why bother trying?

Instead we will make Combat Mission more realistic through our system of Relative Spotting. Reading through some of the posts here, I don't think people necessarily totally understand what a profound impact it will have on the game. Will it make CM 100% realistic? No, and I pitty any fool developer who attempts such a silly venture. But will CM be more realistic than any Squad level wargame yet? Well... of course we already think it is , but we know we can do better.

So until we get into coding the new engine, do a search on Relative Spotting and see what has been said on the subject before. Lots of good stuff to read through.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

U8lead asked:

Do units in C&C spot and ID better then the same units out of C&C in the current game?

And if so, do any of the HQ bonuses (possibly combat bonus) apply to spotting and ID?

If units out of C&C had a substantialy reduced positive ID range would that help Borg ID?

No, no, and no

Why should a unit out of C&C be able to see less far? How is that more realistic? And if it can't see out as far, but in real life should, how does that affect the realistic ability of that individual unit to respond to the oncoming threat? Should a Tiger Tank with a Crack crew sit around NOT spotting an ISU-152 which it should plainly see, just because it doesn't have radio contact with BN HQ? I think not I also think we would have people screaming at us until we "fixed it or did somefink"

This is one of the fundamental problems I have seen in discussions like this. And that is thinking that unrealistically penalizing an individual unit somehow makes the game more realistic. At best it is a wash. At worst, it makes the game on the whole less realistic.

For example, not allowing a unit out of C&C to do anything until it is in C&C is totally unrealistic. Such a system simply swaps in one Borg behavior for another. It doesn't make the game any more realistic, but instead hobbles real life flexibility to the point of making the game unplayable and a joke of a simulation. Don't believe me? Try this one out...

Let us assume that units have to be in C&C with their higher HQs to pass on information and receive orders. OK, can anybody tell me what would happen, under this system, if the BN HQ unit got whacked on the first turn by a lucky artillery bombardment? Would the player just sit there staring at a screen totally lacking friendly and enemy units? Or would all the friendly units show up but the player couldn't do anything or yield any information about themselves or what they see?

The above situation illustrates why removing realistic tactical control is not the right direction to go towards. Because if you follow it to its logical conclusion (i.e. the ultimate realistic state), this is what you wind up with.

Honestly folks, your feedback is appreciated. But I for one am very glad some of you are gamers and not game designers

Steve

[ April 26, 2002, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Oh my God but this is a really big thread

Folks, the crux of the issue is this...

Do people want a Command Style, Micromanagement Style, or Multi-Level Style game? These are terms I made up to illustrate the three major groupings. I define each as such:

snip

So until we get into coding the new engine, do a search on Relative Spotting and see what has been said on the subject before. Lots of good stuff to read through.

Steve

Hi Steve

Thanks for the the latest post.

I would be thrilled to think you actually read every post in this thread. :eek:

I think it has been a positive and constructive discusion with several different points of view represented.

Thanks

-tom w

[ April 26, 2002, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Battlefront.com]

Tom,

I think it has been a positive and constructive discusion with several different points of view represented.

I agree, but I must also point out that this discussion is not that different than a 1/2 dozen other ones held in the past. That is not to take away anything from anyone who participated here and not in the others, but rather to point out that the CM's borg problems are pretty well established by now. They are also not inherently different than those of other games, although we would argue CM deals with them better.

The ideas people are kicking around in this thread are also ones that have been kicked around in other threads. Specifics might not be exactly the same, but the core motivation behind certain lines of thinking are surprisingly similar.

Some people think the key to better realism is to have a sort of "you got it or you don" system of C&C where units not in C&C sit around dumbly until they are contacted again. A variation on that is that the AI somehow handles these units while you are not in command of them. The former is utterly unrealistic, the latter so difficult to program effectively that it is not the best design to pursue (i.e. spending a year making the AI for this means a year of doing nothing else ).

Others think that the way to go is to simulate "orders" down through the chain of command. This is something that most people would find about as exciting as watching paint dry Watering this idea down to make there be more game also means watering down the potential realism and reintroducing the Borg problem.

Believe me, I am not trying to ridicule people for their theories on how the Borg issue should be dealt with. I'm just trying to point out that some "cures" will actually kill the pateient before the operation is even over Others suggest things which will leave nasty scars and open up the doctors for lawsuits (or rather unpleasant commentary on BBSes ). But in general, I think most people understand the basic issues and some even see very simple solutions to some of the problems. Or at least can see how a huge problem can be tackled by several smaller, comprehensive changes.

I think that once people see CMBB they will understand how the Big Problems can be tackled by smaller, perhaps even subtle, changes. Not completely, of course, because to do that the human player would have to be removed almost completely from the game. Later, I think people will see that Relative Spotting (as we have discussed it in the past) they will understand that it reduces or eliminates most of the Big Problems in CM that remain after CMBB's changes. Will the future CM be perfect? From a realism standpoint, of course not. But I can assure you that we will get damned close. Close enough that people will probably ask for Relative Spotting related features to be optional

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Thanks Steve

I think you and everyone else here has figured that this is the basic summary of my position on this issue:

"...even if the BTS idea of Relative Spotting were implimented, in that each and every unit makes it own spotting check and cannot target (but MAY be ordered to use "area Fire" at) enemy units it has not spotted, (BUT the player KNOWS where those enemy units are he can order or direct EVERY unit, irrespective of whether it has spotted the enemy unit or not, or whether it is in C&C or NOT, to fire or move in that general direction (NOW thats a "BORG Like Swarm" ™ to use Redwolf's term ), what would that solve?

I would (again) humbly suggest that anyone who is interested in playing ALL roles and commanding ALL units (EVEN with the BTS concept of Relative Spotting) is actually condoning the "BORG-Like Swarming Units Response" (B-LSR) to an enemy threat."

sorry to repeat that.

From what I understand, yourself (and Most folks here it woud seem) will be comfortable with the Player responding to an enemey threat that is only identified and spotted by one friendly unit by directing all other friendly units in the vicinity to fire at that location or start to move toward that location, (EVEN from WAY across the map) if this is an acceptable situation as a result of the NEW Relative Spotting protocol, to most folks here then I should simply agree to live with it and retire back to that old gunnery optics discussion that was so much fun.

(Posted in the very BEST of humour)

Thanks again its a GREAT game and chatting about it on this forum is even MORE fun than playing sometimes

-tom w

[ April 26, 2002, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Battlefront.com]

Tom,

...even if the BTS idea of Relative Spotting were implimented, in that each and every unit makes it own spotting check and cannot target (but MAY be ordered to use "area Fire" at) enemy units it has not spotted, (BUT the player KNOWS where those enemy units are he can order or direct EVERY unit, irrespective of whether it has spotted the enemy unit or not, or whether it is in C&C or NOT, to fire or move in that general direction (NOW thats a "BORG Like Swarm" ™ to use Redwolf's term ), what would that solve?

Uhm... A HECK OF A LOT Area fire is useless against a moving target and has reduced accuracy and effects against a stationary one. If you think that Area Fire is a fine and dandy substitute for direct targeting, might I suggest booting up CMBO and playing a game on the defensive only using Area Fire commands. I think that ought to get you to see that you are taking a rather extreme and unfair look at what ONE ASPECT of Realitive Spotting will do.

I would (again) humbly suggest that anyone who is interested in playing ALL roles and commanding ALL units (EVEN with the BTS concept of Relative Spotting) is actually condoning the "BORG-Like Swarming Units Response" (B-LSR) to an enemy threat.

In a black and white world, where there is only Borg and Not Borg, you would be correct. But that is a world I don't live in As I described above, there is absolutely NO solution to the Borg problem except to remove the human player from the game. Do you really want that?

If so we could easily make CM play so that you deploy your troops (which CM buys for you) by simply clicking down the HQs at the next level lower than your own (i.e. if you are the Major, you can only click on the Company HQs). CM would then deploy all the rest of the units without you even seeing them. Yup, you wouldn't see anything except what was around your HQ unit, which would be set up and unmovable (for the most part) after the Setup Phase. Then the game would start. You would issue a couple of vauge orders to your next lower HQs and then sit back and wait. From Turn 1 on all friendly units would disappear from the map. Every so often a Spotted icon would appear where MAYBE one of your directly subordinated HQ was. At this point in time you might get back some meaningful information from the HQ, or perhpas not. Depending on if the HQ is in radio contact or not, you could issue orders to the HQ along the vauge lines of Turn 1. You will have no idea what that HQ does with them until the next time he resurfaces. If there is no radio contact, runners would be necessary and that means instant communication would be impossible, thus making that Spotted icon appear less frequently and even more prone to error. After the shooting would start you might have a rough idea about where and the nature of the shooting. But until one of those ghost icons popped up, you wouldn't know much more than that. And even when that does happen, you would only get back snipts of text about what was going on and you could still only issue a few vauge orders.

Gee... DAMN does that sound like fun! Whoopie Cripes, we wouldn't even need to program in anything except some sort of ZORK like text adventure script engine and a few generalized combat resolution equations.

You see.. THAT is the be all, end all Black and White counter balance to the RTS type Borg system. CM is already somewhere inbetween the two, and CMBB is a bit more towards the realism side. The engine rewrite will be even more towards the REALISM side of the equation by reducing the effectiveness of the Borg aspect. But no way, no how can we eliminate it. So why bother having such a black and white set of standards when one side is available and not liked (i.e. RTS with no C&C rules at all) and the other would be a yawner to even those who THINK they want it (i.e. human player almost totally removed from even watching the action)? Wouldn't it be more interesting and productive to focus on practical ways to make the game more realistic without all the hoo-ha about it not going far enough? Hmmm?

Tom, I know you have been a participant in many of the previous discusions. I would have hoped that you picked up on the fact that Relative Spotting is only the underlying mechanism, not the solution. In other words, there are all SORTS of things we can do once Relative Spotting is in place that will increase realism, decrease the Borg, and at the same time make CM more fun. Having restrictions on targeting is just ONE feature made possible by Relative Spotting. A better system of artillery requests is another. More accountable and detailed C&C delays is yet another. There are LOTs of possibilities made possible because of Relative Spotting. So again, don't think of Relative Spotting as the solution, but a part of the underlying foundation for other features which in turn will do lots of things to improve the game on all levels.

When we get into this phase of design we should all have a nice group think about ways we can leverage Relative Spotting and other systems to make CM more realistic. But at this point, we don't have the time to do that. Already spent too much time on this issue as it is

Steve

[ April 26, 2002, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]