Borg Spotting vs Borg ID'ing

[skelley]

Steiner it is a game mode. Kind of like extreme fog of war except that you can't even see your own units when out of LOS of your selected unit.

Stikkypixie... You are probably right, but when things are off because of limitations of programming they really seem to stick out like in the initial release of CMSF. Those problems have been fixed but I fear the lack of abstraction makes the problems with instant IDing more difficult to solve.

[stikkypixie]

There is an in-game mode 'Iron'.

It gives as much information about enemy forces as elite. I don't get your point?

[sawomi]

From CMSF manual:

Elite:

- Friendly units need to be spotted like enemy units

- enemy units often need to be identified and until then appear as generic "enemy

contacts"

- treating wounded soldiers takes a realistic amount of time

- Artillery and air support take a realistic amount of time before arriving

- Commands may not be issued when the game is paused

From 1.21 patch ReadMe:

* "Elite" mode changed so that friendly troops are always displayed, even when not spotted by the current unit. A new mode called "Iron" behaves like the old Elite mode.

If you don't have selected any unit in Iron mode you can see all your units and enemy units are shown in the most revealed ID state. (nothing, '?' or full ID) But when you select one of your units, you get all of your other own units that the selected unit can't see also as 'nothing' or '?'.

So if you have a Platoon of MechInf and put squads next to their IVFs and select one of them you see their IVF and the other squads and their vehicles.

But if you put them in the IVF and select them, you just see the IFV they sit in, and maybe a '?' for the IVF that stands nearby, but the rest of your troops changes to nothing.

No unit selected

Unit in Fuchs selected

[Battlefront.com]

Let me try and straighten this out (again). There are basically two opinions being expressed here:

1. The IDing system definitely would benefit from less information being given out in the middle stages of spotting. Mostly these are people who have played a lot of CM:SF/CM:A, so they are aware of how the game actually plays vs. how people have imagined it plays.

2. The IDing system, as is, is a major game play killer and it's hard to imagine how the game is going to be fun to play with it as is. Mostly these are people who have never played CM:SF/CM:A and, therefore, have no basis for this other than their imagination.

Nowhere is anybody saying that CMx2's current IDing system is great and there are no problems.

The people that fit into the 2nd group should do as I suggest... play the CM:SF Demo (at the very least) or keep in mind that imagining how the game plays is not the same as actually playing. So when someone who HAS played the game is telling you it doesn't play the way you think it does, maybe try taking that information into account before making the next post?

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

One thing that I don't think has been mentioned is that the most basic form of IDing is actually vastly more powerful in CMx2 than it was in CMx1. In CMx2 it is possible to have the same enemy unit spotted in multiple places concurrently. This is because Relative Spotting produces "?" icons on the map based on individual unit perspectives.

We actually had bug reports early in CM:SF testing where testers said "hey, I know the enemy only had 4 units over there but I see 10 "?" icons. BTS fix or do somefink!"

In reality what was happening was each unit was spotting what it saw and where. This might have been different than another unit. Until one of them could get a positive ID *and* pass that information to the other units those extra "?" would sit there.

I remember playing Going to Town (a scenario I made) and knowing that the Syrians had a Special Forces Platoon advancing on my right flank. There maybe were 4-5 units on the move, but I had more than a dozen "?" marks spread out over a couple hundred square meters of space. I made the scenario, I made the AI Plans, and yet I had no flipp'n idea where they really were.

Now, obviously CMx1 had some of this. But they were all subject to Borg Spotting. So when I saw a "?" in one spot I knew that there DEFINITELY was at least one unit there. Never in CMx1 would you have the thought that maybe there wasn't a unit there at all, but instead was just a duplicate marker.

Just another example that the glass isn't always empty if it isn't full.

Steve

[GreenAsJade]

Sounds great. I'm looking forwards to trying it when it arrives

GaJ

[MikeyD]

The grousers do have a point that if you try hard enough you can indeed ruin the CM gameplay exprience. In the same way you could stick a fork into your plugged-in toaster if you wanted. Toaster design must be fundamentally flawed if it allows a fork to be stuck into its innards. If you want to be disappointed badly enough you will be disappointed.

[Steiner14]

Steve,

that convinced me. I will download the demo again and give it a try.

What makes you so sure it will not frighten off WWII-only-players from buying CM:BN?

Are there any plans to introduce (much) more uncertainty and misidentification already into the Westfront-family? Or is that something not trivial to implement and will that take definately a longer time until it will see the light?

[Battlefront.com]

I think MikeyD's point is valid. People picked apart CMBO to DEATH before they got to play the Beta Demo. The range of reactions to it spanned from overwhelming joy to pretty nasty and mean spirited slams (mostly by Steel Panthers and Close Combat fanatics IMHO). When the Beta Demo came out people who were previously convinced that this or that thing would be a problem found that in the overall game experience it was't significant.

As with most things in life, picking out flaws is really easy. Especially because people are free to call something a flaw even if they are the only one in a million to view it that way. People who obsess over picking out flaws tend to make themselves, and those around them, pretty miserable. Everything in life has flaws, and so at some point people need to make a decision if they are more interested in being disappointed than satisfied. It's a choice Grogs find very difficult to make sometimes

Steve

[GreenAsJade]

Most WWII-only players already tried the CMSF demo when it first came out - it doesn't put them off CMBN, only CMSF.

But, as one of those, I can say I'm happy to wait till CMBN comes to try this all out...

GaJ

[Battlefront.com]

Steve,

that convinced me. I will download the demo again and give it a try.

What makes you so sure it will not frighten off WWII-only-players from buying CM:BN?

I don't think so. However, if you do not like modern warfare much I don't expect you to fully enjoy the experience. The content of a wargame is almost as important as the game itself. Still, a lot of people who love CM:SF now didn't know they would until they played.

Are there any plans to introduce (much) more uncertainty and misidentification already into the Westfront-family? Or is that something not trivial to implement and will that take definately a longer time until it will see the light?

We will see what happens. Some tweaks might be possible, but a complete overhaul with fully 3D misidentifications is a big chunk of work I don't think we'll do for the Normandy Family.

Steve

[skelley]

"One thing that I don't think has been mentioned is that the most basic form of IDing is actually vastly more powerful in CMx2 than it was in CMx1. In CMx2 it is possible to have the same enemy unit spotted in multiple places concurrently. This is because Relative Spotting produces "?" icons on the map based on individual unit perspectives."

Never realized that. Most of my battles are battalion sized. BTW I'm not trying to twist your nuts on this IDing issue. Its just an aspect of CMX1 I've loved for the last 10 years and would love to see it in the new engine. Its not game breaking but it does change my moves.

[Battlefront.com]

I forgot to mention that Sawomi's post on the previous page shows something else that wasn't possible in CMx1. The current CMx2 Iron Man mode is only possible because of Relative Spotting. This introduces FRIENDLY Fog Of War. It's a little hard to imagine that it has an effect on playing the game because, of course, you can eventually access any unit on your side since the AI doesn't take them away from you. But I think you'd be surprised how much it disrupts the mental planning process. It's probably the only way to take a chunk out of the Borg player problem without CoPlay.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

People picked apart CMBO to DEATH before they got to play the Beta Demo. The range of reactions to it spanned from overwhelming joy to pretty nasty and mean spirited slams (mostly by Steel Panthers and Close Combat fanatics IMHO). When the Beta Demo came out people who were previously convinced that this or that thing would be a problem found that in the overall game experience it was't significant.

I can vouch for that. Pre-release of the demo, I swore I'd never use the oblique 3-D view. But then, once I tried it, I used it almost exclusively from then on. The only times I used the straight down overhead view was when I wanted to get a view of the entire battlefield. Sometimes during set up I would click into it in order to check to see if I had placed a unit exactly where I wanted it. Otherwise, I stayed in oblique.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Never realized that. Most of my battles are battalion sized.

Yeah, so you'd expect a lot of contacts because the enemy has a large number of units. That makes sense. It also helps to know exactly what the enemy has and what the AI Scripts do.

Still, the fact you didn't know this is kinda cool. It means that you have been making decisions based on information that you thought you had that perhaps didn't really exist. That's some good FoW right there

BTW I'm not trying to twist your nuts on this IDing issue. Its just an aspect of CMX1 I've loved for the last 10 years and would love to see it in the new engine. Its not game breaking but it does change my moves.

And you'll get no argument from me about this because everybody agrees, internally and externally, that more FoW in CMx2 is both possible and desirable. The point of contention I have in this thread is the people that have made up their minds how big of an issue this is based on screen shots and some bits of text. Especially when people who have played the actual game don't feel it is as big of an issue.

In my 18 years of making games I can safely say there is no game I've ever had contact with in development that was released with everything I hoped or wanted it to have. I'm not really bothered by the thought of imperfection in some people's eyes because:

1. I know perfection is impossible.

2. If they are interested in the topic they'll probably buy it anyway.

The funniest customer type, the one that gets us developers rolling on the floor with laughter, are the types that say "your game sucks. And how do I know this? Because I've spent hundreds of hours posting to this Forum, I played every battle that shipped with the game, played dozens of other people's battles, and engaged both Humans and the AI in countless Quick Battles. Therefore I know what I'm talking about. If you expect me to play this game for another couple of years you have to fix these things".

Heh... I'm cracking up just proof reading this

Steve

[DaveDash]

I see this as basically a non-issue.

1. The vast majority of times infantry etc are spotted as a "?" until they are identified. That means whoever has spotted them knows what they are. Yes I do understand the point that all infantry should look the same, but it's reasonable to make the assumption they've positively ID'd their target by the time the icon is displayed.

2. HQ units, FO's, etc are rarely identified ever in practice in CMSF. You might see a "?" if they move around, but most units (unless they are large infantry squads) only become identified when they open up on you. Because HQ's and FO's (Syrian HQ's excepted) never open up on you, you hardly ever ever spot them. Like I said, the vast majority of times in practice when you actually ID units is when they start firing or moving around in the open, and it's not too far fetched that your units on the ground could figure out what they are.

3. The only 'flaw' in the system as such as lack of misidentifying, but I won't lose any sleep over it.

So this is a problem in theory, in practice it hardly becomes an issue.

[Battlefront.com]

I can vouch for that. Pre-release of the demo, I swore I'd never use the oblique 3-D view.

HEH! You were one of those guys, were you? I had forgotten you were part of that crowd.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

HEH! You were one of those guys, were you? I had forgotten you were part of that crowd.

That might have been the most regressive opinion I ever expressed on this board. At least I hope so.

Michael

[sfhand]

I only play Iron mode and wego as well, but if you see a spotter run into a building or a small patch of woods on a hill you can call in arty on them or area target with armor or onboard mortars. In CMX1 if you saw a soldier do the same thing would you call in arty? It could be a sniper or an LMG and you just wasted half your shells killing a non game changing unit. I also miss the days of facing a german Tank IDed as an Assault Gun, Me confronting it with a couple Shermans only to find out too late that it was actually a Hetzer. Now, I will know it is a hetzer and will avoid direct confrontations like the Plague.

I don't see this as destroying the game but it does take a lot of the fun and stress out of the game.

Ummm... given the control I have over the amount of arty I can drop the answer would be yes, there is a good chance I would drop a few rounds on them if my spotter had a question mark icon for them (I'm sure my opponents appreciate this), and no, I wouldn't have "wasted" half my shells engaging them. I'm sure I've "wasted" plenty of arty on less worthy targets in one game playing Red than the situation you describe.

edit: but it is obviously a bigger deal for you than it is for me, that doesn't make either one of us wrong just different people with different tastes.

[Sequoia]

Still, a lot of people who love CM:SF now didn't know they would until they played.

Steve

And I was one of them. I thought mopping up the Syrians would'nt be much fun. That's why I feel should Battlefront ever do a Pacific game (around 2018 or so ) I think people will be surprised with what they can come up with.

[Dietrich]

My two bits (two cents adjusted for inflation):

The absence of borg spotting in CMx2 more than makes up for the absence of misidentification in terms of a more verisimilitudinous tactical experience.

a lot of people who love CM:SF now didn't know they would until they played.

When I first found out a next-generation Combat Mission had come out, I was psyched. When I found out it wasn't a WW2 game, I was like "what?!?" Soon thereafter, though, I got the CM:SF demo and played all the scenarios six ways from Sunday, and I realized it was a game I could really get into. Now, about one and a half years later, I'm still digging it thoroughly.

I dig CM:SF not just because it's a really good game and because I now have an interest in modern warfare and wargaming, but because as the first CMx2 game, it has paved the way for all the other CMx2 games, and because by making it in the first place BFC showed guts and a willingness to take all sorts of flak so as to come to grips with the engine they developed.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

The absence of borg spotting in CMx2 more than makes up for the absence of misidentification in terms of a more verisimilitudinous tactical experience.

I disagree. The borg spotting was never something I was too worried about. In fact, the new spotting sometimes pisses me off in ways borg spotting never did.

But that is another thread altogether.

What I dislike about instant ID however, is that it makes the game far too clinical. No fear/hope of what that contact may be or how you must deal with it. An immediate "oh, it's X, I'll deal with that with Y." I'm talking about the emotional hook more then gameplay device.

The instant ID is much like watching a horror movie with the sound off.

[dan/california]

you can fix 90 percent of the problem with ten percent of the effort. Use a vastly less detailed set of icons for the opposing side. Its that huge overhead diamond that says "ATGM here"(CMSF) that causes people to area target a company of Bradleys on the poor bastards. You can leave the actual 3D representation exactly as is. If people are willing to examine every detail at 3 feet they deserve to be rewarded for reading all those flash cards.

You might be able to add some limitations to low level camera movement 100s of feet from any friendly units, in iron mode or something. So if the camera is a kilometer out in front of the nearest friendly unit it can't go below level 4 or 5.

The combination of the above would go a LOOOONG way to resolving this problem. Its not an intrinsically impossible problem like command delays.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

you can fix 90 percent of the problem with ten percent of the effort. Use a vastly less detailed set of icons for the opposing side. Its that huge overhead diamond that says "ATGM here"(CMSF) that causes people to area target a company of Bradleys on the poor bastards. You can leave the actual 3D representation exactly as is. If people are willing to examine every detail at 3 feet they deserve to be rewarded for reading all those flash cards.

Yup. While clearly a stop gap measure, it would be something I could get behind. And doesn't seem to be too excessive coding wise.

I have the self-restraint not to look at all infantry contacts to see if one of them is, for example, a Shreck team in need of immediate annihilation. But if an AT team rubs their Shreckliness in my face as it does in the current system? Shall I pretend I don't know? That is a lot harder and immersion breaking.

[panzermartin]

Well that's a great idea. An "extreme fog of war" option can be added, where you only get a generic inf icon for all enemy inf units. Still a half measure, but seems like a very easy fix.