Borg Spotting vs Borg ID'ing

[Kanonier Reichmann]

From reading at thread on another bulletin board a very smart observation was made by one of the contributors of the difference between the CMx1 series of games vs the CMx2 series. Yes, the later series has now managed to eliminate Borg spotting but it's been at the expense of now having Borg ID'ing of spotted enemy units.

As I see it, the loss of Borg spotting now means that units like AT guns have greater chances of survivability since all other units don't immediately spot it when one of your units are fired upon. Mind you, even with Borg spotting removed there's nothing to stop a player from targeting the area around the gun that has been spotted by at least one unit with everything you have that can at least draw a line of sight to the general location of the AT gun.

However, with Borg ID'ing we now know exactly what a unit is as soon as it's been spotted with some clarity by one of your units. This no doubt leads to ensuring high priority targets such as HQ's, Panzerschrek/Bazooka teams, artillery spotters etc are targeted by every man and their dog due to their potential for effecting game changing results. Gone are the days where you didn't really know what that unit ID'ed only as infantry was and therefore the fog of war meant that you often didn't target a critical unit for the lack of information on it.

So, has the loss of Borg spotting but at the expense of now having Borg ID'ing been worth it, on balance? Throw in the inability to now portray sound contacts as well and I'm really starting to wonder.

Regards

KR

[Lanzfeld]

Valid point. Very valid. No easy fix it seems.

[toxic.zen]

that is really pretty lame, I'll miss the suspense and tactical element of chance involved when an allied conscript unit sees every tank as a tiger... it seems unrealistic to have this new system... will there perhaps be a patch to remedy this?

[Lanzfeld]

This has been discussed in another thread. Misidentification is out for now. It is just too complex with the new C2 system. What might be doable (in a later mod or patch) is some how "fixing" the instant ID.

[Kwazydog]

So, has the loss of Borg spotting but at the expense of now having Borg ID'ing been worth it, on balance?

These two features should not be lumped together as such, and one did not come at the expense of the other so lets clear that up incorrect assumption.

What you are referring too is having a mis-identification system in game where a unit can mistake one type of unit type for another, etc. Its a feature we want in game too and will be in time, I believe Steve has already mentioned this elsewhere, but at this point we have been focusing our development time for the initial WW2 release on features such as the new quick battle system, water, bridges, etc.

Dan

[sfhand]

Play in iron mode and there is no issue...

[Paper Tiger]

This has already been discussed in this thread here...

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=94423

[Battlefront.com]

Me thinks KR hasn't really played CM: Shock Force because it doesn't work as he suggests, nor does it work that way in CM:BN

It is true that there aren't as many levels of uncertainty in CMx2 as there was in CMx1. But really the only level of uncertainty missing is the one just before absolute confirmation of type. Which means that up until that point there is plenty of uncertainty. Looking at the Elvis vs JonS AAR this is pretty clear. Check out the shots of Elvis fighting in the forest.

What I'm saying here is let's not exaggerate what CMx1's misidentification adds to the game. Certainly it does add to it, no doubt, but it's not like without it the game falls apart. That's an argument coming from ignorance of how the game actually plays out.

But with all that said, it is true that usually progress has some drawbacks. Very, very rarely in life is every step forward without at least some look backwards. Even when the product itself is perfect, something else is lost. In the consumer world affordability is one common thing "lost" when a product is improved.

In CMx2 the Relative Spotting System offers a massive improvement in the overall game experience. It decreases certainty, increases the need for C2, and requires more player skills to beat his opponent. The TacAI is also greatly restricted in terms of what it can do and that, in turn, has a big effect on outcome. Especially for WeGo.

Are misidentifications and more stages of uncertainty missed? Yes, for sure. But in context it's not a significant problem. Something we will improve in the future, still, because it's cool no matter how little it matters tactically.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

These two features should not be lumped together as such, and one did not come at the expense of the other so lets clear that up incorrect assumption.

What you are referring too is having a mis-identification system in game where a unit can mistake one type of unit type for another, etc. Its a feature we want in game too and will be in time, I believe Steve has already mentioned this elsewhere, but at this point we have been focusing our development time for the initial WW2 release on features such as the new quick battle system, water, bridges, etc.

Dan

Yes, good point. Relative Spotting didn't make Misidentification difficult to do. The more precise 1:1 environment did. Therefore, framing this as an "either or" choice is inherently off the mark from the start. At least from a technical standpoint. Of course anybody could argue that if we had not spent x time working on y feature we could have instead put x time into z feature. A valid argument, but not a very relevant one.

Plus, if I had to choose between a Relative Spotting system and a Misidentification system (a choice we don't have to make) I'd take the Relative Spotting system any day of the week. On balance it does so much more for the game than the Misidentification system ever could.

Steve

[Steiner14]

Play in iron mode and there is no issue...

ROFL!

Only girls and whiners complain about Borg ID'ing!

[sfhand]

Well, I'm going to keep beating my drum... while playing in iron mode it doesn't matter if someone on your side id's an enemy, each unit has to spot and id the target to engage it directly. So this seems like a non-issue to me, in fact the label Borg IDing seems way off the mark, even if discussing wished for (not be me, btw) features like misidentification.

[Battlefront.com]

Here's an example from JonS' AAR report:

(larger image)

Yep, this is pretty much all I saw of his assault on minute 14. A couple of guys, widely spaced, jogging up the hill. But I have to assume there are more. Lots more. You can see loads of contact reports down on the lateral, and, while he’s obviously have been left out in the sun too long at some point, I don’t think even Elvis is loopy enough to mount a major attack with just a couple of guys.

But I only saw a few, and that’s because I’d deliberately surrendered the forward edge of the forest, in order to avoid being eaten up at no cost by a battery of Shermans parked down on the lateral and conducting a direct-fire shoot. Besides, Hill 154 is a very significant objective for me, but I only have to hold the rear half of it. The forward half has no value to me except as a place to fight and kill Americans.

I don't want to post any spoliers here, but Elvis is definitely advancing with more than a few men

Steve

[MikeyD]

Do you get the feeling the poster doesn't play CMSF much?

[Battlefront.com]

Already mentioned

It is natural for people to wonder how things will play out in CM:BN vs. CMx1. But there's an easy way to get a lot of basic answers... and that is to download the CM:SF Demo and take it for a spin. Even if you hate modern or desert warfare, the demo will at least show what CMx2's baseline elements are compared to CMx1. Although CM:BN is an improved version of the engine used for CM:SF, the major portions of the game system itself are far more similar to each other than to CMx1.

The other option, of course, is to not be so skeptical and wait until the game is out to see if there is really anything to make a fuss over

Steve

[Sakai007]

I, for one, don't care if the Mausers shoot rainbow ponys instead of bullets, I will still play this game until my eyes bleed! The PC game crowd is a bit spoiled these days, It wasn't that long ago that the first CM made Steel Panthers look like asteroids

[skelley]

Mikey, I have played CMSF alot and I can say without doubt that the poster has a very valid point. At the very least with infantry you should not be able to discern that a soldier at 1000m is a spotter, sniper or HQ. It should be a generic infantry sign with no further info. You can't tell me that if you are playing and you BORG ID a spotter, that you aren't going to throw everything you have at 'em. How many times has arty changed the outcome of games you have played? I know in all my games, whether CMX1 or CMX2 arty has played a large part, and to be able to ID units so easily hurts the game. Can you tell me your approach to taking a wooded area wouldn't change if you knew without doubt that the enemy platoon holding the area was a Gebirs. as opposed to a normal rifle platoon?

I am happy that Battlefront will try to implement this, hopefully sooner rather than later because it is not a minor issue nor a "Lame/Gamey CMX1 Feature.

Mikey you seem to take any critique of CMSF as a personal insult. I don't get it. We know it will never be a perfect simulation of combat, but it can always be better. I would think Battlefront would rather have people here that challenge their ideas and assumptions rather than always agree with them even if it does get annoying. We all want the same thing.....A Better game.

That being said....I can't wait for the release of CMBN!

[stikkypixie]

Here's an example from JonS' AAR report:

I don't want to post any spoliers here, but Elvis is definitely advancing with more than a few men

Steve

And those couple guys he can see, he can know for sure there not an HQ unit or a spotter or a machine gun...

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Already mentioned

It is natural for people to wonder how things will play out in CM:BN vs. CMx1. But there's an easy way to get a lot of basic answers... and that is to download the CM:SF Demo and take it for a spin. Even if you hate modern or desert warfare, the demo will at least show what CMx2's baseline elements are compared to CMx1. Although CM:BN is an improved version of the engine used for CM:SF, the major portions of the game system itself are far more similar to each other than to CMx1.

The other option, of course, is to not be so skeptical and wait until the game is out to see if there is really anything to make a fuss over

Steve

Fair enough. I need to learn the system thoroughly before I can pass final judgement and you're right, I haven't played a CMx2 game as yet but I have downloaded the Afghanistan demo. to check it out.

The thing with the screen shot you posted above however is that from my understanding, you know for a fact that the 2 properly spotted units are in fact, pure infantry units with their usual array of infantry small arms. Can't possibly be MG units, an HQ unit or an artillery spotter because if they were then you would know this at this point in the spotting cycle. That's what I feel I'm going to miss.

In my opinion, more fog of war is more desireable than less and with the relative spotting sytem within CMx2, you know exactly where everything is and what it is, once properly spotted, although you may not have the ability to specifically target it with all your units that have line of sight to it.

Isn't that a fair observation of the CMx2 system?

Regards

KR

[Paper Tiger]

The thing with the screen shot you posted above however is that from my understanding, you know for a fact that the 2 properly spotted units are in fact, pure infantry units with their usual array of infantry small arms. Can't possibly be MG units, an HQ unit or an artillery spotter because if they were then you would know this at this point in the spotting cycle. That's what I feel I'm going to miss.

KR: You wouldn't believe how hard we're pushing for this level of information to be substantially reduced. We're putting forward ideas that you guys have never even contemplated. But, at the end of the day, there's only so much two guys can do and I'll accept what we're given because it's already so much better than anything else you can play at this level...

[futon river crossing]

It sounds like they've coded themselves into a corner.

[ZPB II]

I'm a bit confused. I could swear that sound contacts exist in CMx2 (like spotting a ? tank on a road behind buildings.) and with Iron difficulty your friendly units don't share ID info and all that jazz...

[Steiner14]

At the very least with infantry you should not be able to discern that a soldier at 1000m is a spotter, sniper or HQ.

I haven't played more than maybe one or two hours CMSF since it's early patches and i will definately wait for the release of CMBN to make my own opinion, but if that abvoe statement is true, then this could be a huge problem for realistical combat.

Since nobody contradicts this statement, it seems to be true. But then i don't understand why so much time is invested in discussing other features, if main aspects like IDing do not work in a realistical way?

The first thing i would do, if IDing works that way, i would concentrate all firepower to destroy his forward observers. Say goodbye to the precious artillery rounds... And before a close attack i would try to destroy the platoon's C2 capabilities by focusing on the HQ units only.

I may be wrong, but couldn't engagements of tanks also be done like this: use a ATG-unit to shoot out the HQ-tank first. Afterwards engage with your more precious tanks, when the platoon is stripped of his C2 and special capabilities...

This was not at all possible in CMx1, a ten year older engine! It was not easy to ID HQ-units and you needed at least already several seconds of close combat to get that info.

ps: i too have the impression that several beta testers are of the kind of yes-men

[ZPB II]

I'd like to point out that in CMSF most every unit has modern optics, 4x, 8x, thermals, amplifiers...You name it, even the most basic US grunt has a scope on his M4.

This is not the case in WW2, and since none of us has actually played the game...I wouldn't go so far as to panic over it...

Actually, I think I'll skip reading this AAR from now on, it's really starting to spoil my mood. So much dis- and misinformation and almost downright hysteria and none of us has even touched the game. I now fully understand why BFC doesn't release screens and info until the very last moment and I fully applaud them for this move. The forums would be really tiresome otherwise.

EDIT: I have thankfully never been in real combat, but I have spent more than a fair share of time in combat exercises as an armoured jager, with every participant wearing the latest combat simulation gear from Saab-Bofors Dynamics. You know, the one that tracks you realtime via GPS and calculates artillery and direct fire that way. With lasers that actually work at 300-500m ranges. Sitting in the back of a CV90 speeding through the forest, Leopard 2A4s, BMP-2s, explosions, Hornets and Little Birds flying everywhere, utter chaos...And even then it is not that hard to pick out the participants of the battle. You know it's an MG team when you see the gun and a couple of guys carrying boxes behind him. Soldier yelling and waving his hand at the radio guy? HQ perhaps... I could pick out our company HQ CV90 every time because of the way the commander out of the hatch swiveled around at twice the speed of others.

Even though it's all simulated you're still out of breath, adrenaline kicking in and the noise just drills in your head drowning out your thoughts. Yet you can still make these observations...

[Steiner14]

But every HQ, forward observer or HMG unit of the involved armies had binoculars in WWII. So maybe the distance of BogID shrinks from 1000m to a fraction thereof. But even only 100m could be enough for gamey HQ-turkey-shooting.

[Lanzfeld]

That is why I say it is a valid point. Borg IDing a unit to find out what it is AND what it is not from a glance as it charges up a hill or from 1000 meters away to too much info. It has been a problem all throughout CMSF and we were hoping for SOME fix in CM:BN. Seems we will have to wait longer. Not a deal breaker for me just something I was hoping got worked on.

The point here, as stated a few times above, is that you can spot the "important" units and focus on them to "gut" the enemy.

Or to put it in a phrase we have all read about in history books..."Captain! Cover those bars dammit!!! "