Targeting when assigning indirect fire, very annoying "feature"

[Wrath of Dagon]

So you're supposed to area fire on suspected enemy locations, but not area fire on known enemy locations? That makes no sense whatsoever. Sorry, this is still a game, so tying your own hands makes no sense. The rationalization in this case is either the mortar team heard the gun or saw the muzzle flash, or a runner was sent from a spotting unit to the mortar to request area fire.

[stikkypixie]

So you're supposed to area fire on suspected enemy locations, but not area fire on known enemy locations? That makes no sense whatsoever. Sorry, this is still a game, so tying your own hands makes no sense. The rationalization in this case is either the mortar team heard the gun or saw the muzzle flash, or a runner was sent from a spotting unit to the mortar to request area fire.

The player also has knowledge of all "known" enemy positions. Why bother implementing relative spotting, if you want to play using borg spotting again.

[Battlefront.com]

This is quite strange way of thinking. You allow it, but don't allow it and want to call it cheating?

It's an unavoidable conflict caused between legitimate needs and illegitimate leveraging of Player as God advantages. This is generally called "gamey" behavior, where you the player are not breaking any rules, but are leveraging them for an unrealistic result. "Cheating" is when you find a way to break the rules through the exploitation of a bug or design deficiency. Fine line between the two, but a good example of "cheating" would be hacking a file with a hex editor and changing your Stuart to have the characteristics of a King Tiger.

There's not many "gamey" issues, thankfully, but there are some. Various issues having to do with map edges is common one. Reassigning assets on-the-fly based on tiny tactical situations that never would, realistically, cause assets to be diverted/reassigned. Pounding the hell out of the most likely assembly area in a QB using pre-game prep fire. Stuff like that.

Your approach is bit like government promising to pay unemployment benefits to all unemployed people if they apply for it, but then they would try to hide all the application forms because is bit like "cheating" not to get job for yourself.

SteveP did a good job with this, but I can do one better It's more like Government saying that won't pay for x amount of unemployment if you don't look for a job. But there is no foolproof method for assessing this and some have made a career out of making it appear that they are looking so that they can get their checks without working. The citizenry as a whole agree such behavior is not acceptable.

Agree?

There are three possible responses:

1. Make the standards stricter. But doing this usually makes the honest citizen feel like a "criminal", or at the very least increases the costs of the system substantially while probably not doing much to reduce fraud.

2. Give up and have no standards at all. If you get fired you can just collect unemployment and never show that you're really trying to get back to work.

3. Accept that no system is perfect and that people prone to fraud will always find a way to defeat the controls, therefore leave it "as is" or maybe tweak it a little.

We choose #3.

Please treat us like adults and let me or any other person to decide ourselves what is cheating and what is not. Concentrate improving or modifying game mechanics to your likings and make the UI best and easiest possible to do anything game mechanics allows.

Games are all about the rules. Without them there can be no game. A simulation requires even more rules, and stricter ones, because by definition a simulation requires behavior to be within certain norms. More importantly, it sets the standards which all players must conform to so that there is a shared, common experience.

This way you support the widest audience.

So why not put in Power Ups and Spawn Points while we're at it?

And once again because people are insisting it.

A couple of people "insisting" on something doesn't impress us. We've got tens of thousands of people "insisting" we do things their way, which is often contrary to what someone else wants done. We would still be working on CMBO now if we did things based on what individuals "insisted" we put into the game.

Why do you want to decide for the gamer what is wrong way around to do things? If you game mechanic allows a set of things, would it be nicer for all that those who want to think "wrong way" and those who think "right way" can do same things? Why does the UI have to place restrictions? I find this kind of thinking bit offensive even. You treat us quite like child.

I'm sure most people here would agree that often it is the customer that behaves like a child. A piece of advice... if you think of something don't assume it's gold. It could be a turd of an idea. We'll be as polite and delicate as we possibly can be, but we're not here to do what you want us to do. You didn't buy that right when you purchased the game. You bought the right to play what we give you. It's a privilege to discuss changes with the people who make games, not a right. Your only right is to buy or not buy.

The freedom of selecting own play style that is actually left in game mechanics (either intentionally or because restrictions are impossible to make or any reason) is then hidden under clumsy UI. I can see very little intelligent logic behind this.

There could be a reason for that which has nothing to do with us.

As it so happens, the suggestion made where you click on an enemy unit and you get to see what Spotters can draw LOS to that unit, is far more workable and positive than what you suggested... yet I think it would largely give you what you want without the unintended side effects you refuse to acknowledge exist. Most players would make horrific game designers, at least for their first project, so don't take it so hard.

Steve

[Wrath of Dagon]

@stikkypixie

Because the units won't fire by themselves or be able to use direct fire, that makes a big difference.

In real life, if a tank sees an ATG and reverses, would he try to take it out by himself, or send a crew member to the nearest mortar to try to take the ATG out? What would be the more realistic outcome in the game?

Edit: If a tank sees and ATG and you then send an infantry squad to flank the ATG and try to take it out, is that also gamey? How do you recon? How exactly are you supposed to play this game if you have to constantly think about what each unit knows and only have him act on this knowledge? I bet no one actually plays it like that.

[Battlefront.com]

So you're supposed to area fire on suspected enemy locations, but not area fire on known enemy locations? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Define "known"? "Known to the Player" is not the same thing as "Known to the Unit". It's the difference between Absolute Spotting and Relative Spotting. With Relative Spotting the answer to your question is:

A specific unit should be allowed to Area Fire on a spot which it would reasonably have a suspicion that an enemy unit might be present. A specific unit should NOT be allowed to Area Fire on a spot which some other unit, which is not in communications, has a suspicion or knowledge that an enemy unit might be present.

The unfortunate thing is there is no way, none, for the game to recognize the difference between these two situations. Therefore, the player is allowed to behave unrealistically because there's no practical way to prevent it. Just like there's no practical way to prevent a player from doing a turn over from a save file because he didn't like the results he got the first time.

Sorry, this is still a game, so tying your own hands makes no sense. The rationalization in this case is either the mortar team heard the gun or saw the muzzle flash, or a runner was sent from a spotting unit to the mortar to request area fire.

That's covered with the Relative Spotting and C2 system. Or put another way, the rationalization is already explicitly simulated in the game. The other situations can not be rationalized and therefore are "gamey". And as I've said before, I doubt any player reading this can say that they DON'T do this sort of gamey behavior. I know I do. It's just too tempting

Steve

[WineCape]

"Known to the Player" is not the same thing as "Known to the Unit". It's the difference between Absolute Spotting and Relative Spotting. .....A specific unit should be allowed to Area Fire on a spot which it would reasonably have a suspicion that an enemy unit might be present. A specific unit should NOT be allowed to Area Fire on a spot which some other unit, which is not in communications, has a suspicion or knowledge that an enemy unit might be present.

Indeed. And the crux/answer to this whole thread.

[SteveP]

That's covered with the Relative Spotting and C2 system. Or put another way, the rationalization is already explicitly simulated in the game. The other situations can not be rationalized and therefore are "gamey". And as I've said before, I doubt any player reading this can say that they DON'T do this sort of gamey behavior. I know I do. It's just too tempting

But at least the way the game works means that you are confronted with the fact that you are about to do something gamey. I think that in CM1, there was nothing to give you this kind of signal. If people start to get this, they may start to think about other, less gamey ways to accomplish the objective. Which is good training, if you will.

Which is why I am bothered by the instructions in the tutorial ...

[sburke]

Yeah, Cirrus appears to be using "direct" to mean "firing at a spotted target" and "indirect" to mean "area firing".

If you want, you can just put a little piece of tape on your screen where the AT gun is, then switch to the mortar and target the piece of tape. That's what I do. It might be a bit "gamey", but I've found it's an acceptable workaround.

LOL do you seriously stick tape on your monitor? I have this vision of little pieces of tape all over your PC. Totally cracking me up. Not that it is itself is a bad idea (though i'd be cleaning my monitor all the time, and hope like hell my cat didn't bump the mouse) it just gives a funny visual.

[Cirrus]

No, I think the proper analogy is that what you want is like the government sending benefit checks to someone who has not applied for them, because the government "knows" the person is unemployed. You, as commander, may "know" there is something in that location, but most of the time IRL there is no practical way to communicate that exact location to a unit that has no intelligence about that enemy itself. You can't even use map coordinates because that is not available to all the units (and maybe to none of them). There is reason why there is a delay in the "receiving" phase for indirect fire, because of the time required to communicate target location instructions to a firing unit. But you want to be able to communicate that type of instruction to any unit instantly for an area fire order. The game doesn't prevent you from doing that, but the designers have no reason to make it easy for you to do that.

Your analogy fails badly. I do not want anything like that. I don't need to. The thing is already in the game. Analogy would hit the target if I was the one requesting game mechanics change like that.

All I wan't that they don't hide it. And why, because there is nothing to loose. Only to gain. Easier you would help me, but would not prevent your playstyle either. Developers have no reason (except personal preference) not to make it like that if we exclude time constraints thinking from this equation. Time and money can of course play role in any case, but that's totally different discussion then.

[Cirrus]

It's an unavoidable conflict caused between legitimate needs and illegitimate leveraging of Player as God advantages. This is generally called "gamey" behavior, where you the player are not breaking any rules, but are leveraging them for an unrealistic result. "Cheating" is when you find a way to break the rules through the exploitation of a bug or design deficiency. Fine line between the two, but a good example of "cheating" would be hacking a file with a hex editor and changing your Stuart to have the characteristics of a King Tiger.

There's not many "gamey" issues, thankfully, but there are some. Various issues having to do with map edges is common one. Reassigning assets on-the-fly based on tiny tactical situations that never would, realistically, cause assets to be diverted/reassigned. Pounding the hell out of the most likely assembly area in a QB using pre-game prep fire. Stuff like that.

This I understand perfectly. However I don't see any reason to "mess with ui" there.

SteveP did a good job with this, but I can do one better It's more like Government saying that won't pay for x amount of unemployment if you don't look for a job. But there is no foolproof method for assessing this and some have made a career out of making it appear that they are looking so that they can get their checks without working. The citizenry as a whole agree such behavior is not acceptable.

Agree?

There are three possible responses:

1. Make the standards stricter. But doing this usually makes the honest citizen feel like a "criminal", or at the very least increases the costs of the system substantially while probably not doing much to reduce fraud.

2. Give up and have no standards at all. If you get fired you can just collect unemployment and never show that you're really trying to get back to work.

3. Accept that no system is perfect and that people prone to fraud will always find a way to defeat the controls, therefore leave it "as is" or maybe tweak it a little.

We choose #3.

No I do not agree. I turned the logic upside down in your analogy and that why it is not relevant in situation like this. I try to give mathematical explanation:

The premises:

in game:

Feature exists no matter what

you goverment example:

Feature exists with condition

Games are all about the rules. Without them there can be no game. A simulation requires even more rules, and stricter ones, because by definition a simulation requires behavior to be within certain norms. More importantly, it sets the standards which all players must conform to so that there is a shared, common experience.

Yes, definitely. This standard is created by the game mechanics, the ruleset which game runs. Not by the user interface.

A couple of people "insisting" on something doesn't impress us. We've got tens of thousands of people "insisting" we do things their way, which is often contrary to what someone else wants done. We would still be working on CMBO now if we did things based on what individuals "insisted" we put into the game.

I was not talking about this. I was refering to the people who are trying to twist the facts. IE comparing UI to game mechanics.

But yes, I am insisting too. I am challenging your logic, because I can't find it.

I'm sure most people here would agree that often it is the customer that behaves like a child. A piece of advice... if you think of something don't assume it's gold. It could be a turd of an idea. We'll be as polite and delicate as we possibly can be, but we're not here to do what you want us to do. You didn't buy that right when you purchased the game. You bought the right to play what we give you. It's a privilege to discuss changes with the people who make games, not a right. Your only right is to buy or not buy.

Of course. And like you already mentioned earlier, it's the ruleset in play that binds all players. The way you have chosen to do it. There is no logic whatsoever to deny and argue things that exists already. You can not brush it under carpet. Aknowledge it and turn it to your advantage.

As it so happens, the suggestion made where you click on an enemy unit and you get to see what Spotters can draw LOS to that unit, is far more workable and positive than what you suggested... yet I think it would largely give you what you want without the unintended side effects you refuse to acknowledge exist. Most players would make horrific game designers, at least for their first project, so don't take it so hard.

Steve

What side effects are you talking about? All side effects are already in the game. The rule set is defined. I am not asking you to change any rules. I definetely refuse to see any side effects since zero game mechanics changes are needed and zero new side effects is generated. Seeing those things follows no logic. This is not matter of opinion. This can be verified any time.

It seems to me that you are hung up to your idea of right and wrong too much to see clearly. This discussion seems to turned from logical analysis of how things work to their fullest to some idealogical discussion. I have no interest in such discussions. Everybody is right in such matters. It suprises me however that you fail to see that you have nothing to loose here. Any "cheating" or "gameying" can be done now already and that's what I do. No game play style would be lost, but only one would be made easier. And still people could choose to play as they did before the change. And that's a fact.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Another related problem is how the F12 key works. It selects the previously selected unit, but it also messes up the camera by rotating it to face the selected unit instead of leaving it in place. If it wasn't for that, you could simply find the desired location by deselecting, then reselect the targeting unit with F12 and target the spot. It's also a problem in other situations when you want to give a target or move order.

Btw, I'm still flabbergasted at the logic expressed in this thread. Apparently, if one of my units spots an ATG, I should just blithely drive my tank right into it because the tank has no way of knowing the ATG is there!

[Mattias]

It seems to me that you are hung up to your idea of right and wrong too much to see clearly. This discussion seems to turned from logical analysis of how things work to their fullest to some idealogical discussion. I have no interest in such discussions. Everybody is right in such matters. It suprises me however that you fail to see that you have nothing to loose here. Any "cheating" or "gameying" can be done now already and that's what I do. No game play style would be lost, but only one would be made easier. And still people could choose to play as they did before the change. And that's a fact.

Cirrus, If you are wondering why this issue is even being discussed you have only to reflect on your wording of the original post. A big red thumbs down for the way the game is designed, the limited spotting such as it works in the game is a "very annoying feature". Had you only made a simple request for an extension of the UI it could have been judged by it´s own merit; earning you a friendly non argumentative response or a place with thousands of other ideas, somewhere in the forum archives.

By now it is quite clear what you want and why you want it. Battlefront has stated their case and explained their reasoning with regards to the mechanics being discussed here. The way things are handled right now seems completely logical when seen in the context of what Battlefront has set out to archive. But what you want is a feature added on top of that, a feature that will give you a bit of information that you feel is lacking. And which should be easy to implemented. Right?

Perhaps your vision is so revolutionary that we have not yet understood the greatness of it (and I am not being sarcastic here). Perhaps that is the case but you should know that the direction of the discussion on spotting mechanics has for years been moving, at times violently, away from seeing too much towards seeing, at a unit level, only that which could realistically be seen. I too put down area fire on "unspotted" enemies (there usually is a bit of active rationalization going on though) but that is done in a matter of seconds (unselect all -> Tab in on target-> Zoom in close-> select firing units floating icon -> press T, left click and Bob´s you uncle). The fact that you, in this context, grossly over state the magnitude of the problem caused by the lack of your feature (that in it self goes against the spirit of the what has been aggressively demanded for years - i.e. real relative spotting) definitely fuels this debate but it doesn't give your opinion any more merit.

M.

[sburke]

I think this falls under item 1, though I did have to add numbers 10-13 as they also likely apply.

1.) Anything that doesn't work as I expect or desire is broken.

2.) If it doesn't work the same as some previous version of CM or like some other game I prefer, then it isn't complete and needs to be fixed in the next patch.

3.) If it doesn't include my favorite WW2 vehicle, no matter how rare, the game isn't done

4.) my experience playing the game since it was released is equal in value to yours having played possibly years

5.) I test nothing to validate something I saw. Once is enough, suck it up and fix it.

6.) if I have to read the manual it isn't explicit enough

7.) Anything that happens that is "buggy" no matter how rarely is enough to ruin the game enough that I won't play anymore...ever

8.) If I have to read the forum to get hints or even see if my issue hasn't already been talked to death....it isn't explicit enough

9.) Though I don't run my own business and actually have no experience doing so, I won't hesitate for a second in telling BFC how to run theirs

10.) Battlefront should immediately begin work on my pet feature while simultaneously continuing work on all the rest of the forthcoming modules and games. So what if you don't have a huge programming team, suck it up and get to work.

11.) I automatically speak for the entire playing community even if I am the only person who wants this particular item.

12.) Though I am not a programmer, I still feel I can tell you how much of the underlying code will have to be rewritten for my particular feature and it will always be negligible.

13.) My feature request will allow you to appeal to the mythical wider audience allowing you to retire to that villa in Tuscany once you implement it. My apologies to the rest of you who thought you might actually see the Eastern Front someday. Charles/Steve you can thank me for the villa later.

Cirrus you are asking them to rewrite code in order to make it easier to target a unit you can't see though you already have the ability to target the area around that unit, it just means you have to put in some more effort by zooming down on the map. C'mon man you really want to hold up all the other work (like what Steve has already said about enhancing the UI) other modules and games etc? Their team is incredibly small, is this really that important to you to prioritize over all the other items that are already on their list? Seriously put some perspective - is it merely an annoyance or is it such a hindrance to warrant the effort and impact on other items?

[The_Capt]

I think this falls under item 1, though I did have to add numbers 10-13 as they also likely apply.

1.) Anything that doesn't work as I expect or desire is broken.

2.) If it doesn't work the same as some previous version of CM or like some other game I prefer, then it isn't complete and needs to be fixed in the next patch.

3.) If it doesn't include my favorite WW2 vehicle, no matter how rare, the game isn't done

4.) my experience playing the game since it was released is equal in value to yours having played possibly years

5.) I test nothing to validate something I saw. Once is enough, suck it up and fix it.

6.) if I have to read the manual it isn't explicit enough

7.) Anything that happens that is "buggy" no matter how rarely is enough to ruin the game enough that I won't play anymore...ever

8.) If I have to read the forum to get hints or even see if my issue hasn't already been talked to death....it isn't explicit enough

9.) Though I don't run my own business and actually have no experience doing so, I won't hesitate for a second in telling BFC how to run theirs

10.) Battlefront should immediately begin work on my pet feature while simultaneously continuing work on all the rest of the forthcoming modules and games. So what if you don't have a huge programming team, suck it up and get to work.

11.) I automatically speak for the entire playing community even if I am the only person who wants this particular item.

12.) Though I am not a programmer, I still feel I can tell you how much of the underlying code will have to be rewritten for my particular feature and it will always be negligible.

13.) My feature request will allow you to appeal to the mythical wider audience allowing you to retire to that villa in Tuscany once you implement it. My apologies to the rest of you who thought you might actually see the Eastern Front someday. Charles/Steve you can thank me for the villa later.

I think you need a #14.) When BFC fails to act on my idea or disagrees with me in any way, I stamp my feet and scream "bad customer service". Run off to other forums and bad mouth BFC to any and all that will listen.

[user38]

sburke, you forgot one:

15.) Oh well, another sale lost.

[Battlefront.com]

No I do not agree. I turned the logic upside down in your analogy and that why it is not relevant in situation like this. I try to give mathematical explanation:

The premises:

in game:

Feature exists no matter what

you goverment example:

Feature exists with condition

No, the game feature exists with conditions. I've explained them to you, you don't like them, but that doesn't change it. We would also have to reengineer the game to work the way you want it to. You might undervalue the work that entails, but you're not the one that has to do the work. So, basically, you're opinion has no tangible value since it operates in a vacuum while mine does not.

Yes, definitely. This standard is created by the game mechanics, the ruleset which game runs. Not by the user interface.

I was not talking about this. I was refering to the people who are trying to twist the facts. IE comparing UI to game mechanics.

But yes, I am insisting too. I am challenging your logic, because I can't find it.

Aknowledge it and turn it to your advantage.

Perhaps it is you that should acknowledge something? Oh, like maybe you're just rejecting my explanations and the implications because you don't understand them?

At this point it might be helpful to do some introspection. How much of this game have you designed? How many other games have you designed? How many thousands of customers have you had discussions with? Isn't it possible, juuuuuuust possible, that my opinion here has a tiny bit more validity and weight than yours?

What side effects are you talking about? All side effects are already in the game. The rule set is defined. I am not asking you to change any rules. I definetely refuse to see any side effects since zero game mechanics changes are needed and zero new side effects is generated. Seeing those things follows no logic. This is not matter of opinion. This can be verified any time.

Sigh. I've tried many different ways to explain this, but you still insist that the world is flat because that is how you perceive it. So we're just going to have to agree to disagree because further explanation appears pointless.

It seems to me that you are hung up to your idea of right and wrong too much to see clearly.

Amusing. And you don't see your own vision even remotely clouded by "I want it so I don't care why it's the way it is now" even the tiniest bit?

This discussion seems to turned from logical analysis of how things work to their fullest to some idealogical discussion. I have no interest in such discussions. Everybody is right in such matters.

Game implications are always logical, never idealogical, when there is a standard being matched against. In this case realism. The ideology comes in with how to manage competing logical solutions to a particular tangible difference of opinion. In this case only we are right in such matters because we are the keeper of the ideology. Or would you rather have tens of thousands of individuals put in charge of making a singular game experience based on their own personalized perception of reality?

Steve

[user38]

Another related problem is how the F12 key works. It selects the previously selected unit, but it also messes up the camera by rotating it to face the selected unit instead of leaving it in place. If it wasn't for that, you could simply find the desired location by deselecting, then reselect the targeting unit with F12 and target the spot. It's also a problem in other situations when you want to give a target or move order.

All sarcasm aside, I have to agree with this point about the F12 key (but not for the stated reason). I find the camera works fine if I use the mouse left click right click controls. I love the fact that you can control the speed of the camera by moving the pointer closer or further away from the screen edges. It's extremely intuitive. In fact, if there were some way of panning while zooming I would say this is a genius camera control method. (The mouse pointer at the edge of the screen method doesn't work for me because I can't control the speed of the camera that way.)

A problem arises when plotting waypoints. If you have to move the camera during the plotting process you have to deselect the unit to free up the left click camera move function, and when you reselect the unit with F12 the camera viewpoint changes. I can see the logic of F12 moving the camera to view the selected unit. However, given the only time I deselect a unit that I want to come back to is when I am plotting waypoints or issuing target commands away from my unit, my preference would be that F12 didn't disturb the camera viewpoint.

[Battlefront.com]

Another related problem is how the F12 key works. It selects the previously selected unit, but it also messes up the camera by rotating it to face the selected unit instead of leaving it in place. If it wasn't for that, you could simply find the desired location by deselecting, then reselect the targeting unit with F12 and target the spot. It's also a problem in other situations when you want to give a target or move order.

I've never thought of this, nor has anybody suggested it work otherwise until now, because the purpose of the function is to move to the previous unit. I can see an argument for a separate function that selects other units without changing orientation, but I definitely think it would be ill advised to change the behavior of the current function since it serves that purpose well. Having a separate "jump to" key that doesn't move the camera could be quite useful, especially for User38's point (which makes perfect sense to me, BTW). But yet another command? Sheesh... gotta think about that.

Btw, I'm still flabbergasted at the logic expressed in this thread. Apparently, if one of my units spots an ATG, I should just blithely drive my tank right into it because the tank has no way of knowing the ATG is there!

I'm still flabbergasted that someone still can't understand the logic I'll try again...

In WW2 if a tank was trundling down the road, unaware of an AT Gun ahead of it which WAS known to some other unit, what would it do?

1. Continue to go about its business without taking the AT Gun into account.

2. React in some way, such as ceasing to move, reversing, popping smoke, pumping Area Fire into the spot where the AT Gun definitely is, calling in mortar fire, etc.

Assuming you're not insane, and therefore say #1, we move onto see this situation in game terms.

In a game, under the same exact circumstances as described in the real life example above, what would you as the player do given the same choices? Making what should be a safe assumption here, I'm going to presume that we're in agreement the player would do #2. Yes?

If you are in agreement then you should be able to grasp that there is a fundamental split between realism and game play on an issue like this. The choice open to the gamer is NOT the choice open to the real world tanker moving down the road. So how to deal with issues surrounding the game situation from a UI standpoint?

If Combat Mission were a brainless RTS game, where realism wasn't even remotely considered, then the answer is really simple. The UI should be optimized to make reacting to the AT Gun threat as easy as possible since there's no downside for the game as a whole (i.e. because realism isn't a significant issue). But Combat Mission isn't a brainless RTS game, and in fact that's why you are all here playing it and not playing Company of Heroes instead (note emphasis on INSTEAD). Therefore realism must matter to you. So why would you want us to optimize the game behavior to work against it's primary design goal? If we do it here, why shouldn't we do it elsewhere when any SINGLE player decides something is annoying him?

Any change in your perspective?

Steve

[Wrath of Dagon]

@user38 That's what I meant by "other situations", but couldn't recall the specifics, thanks.

[PanzerMiller]

Btw, I'm still flabbergasted at the logic expressed in this thread. Apparently, if one of my units spots an ATG, I should just blithely drive my tank right into it because the tank has no way of knowing the ATG is there!

Well...yeah, that could actually happen in RL if there's no way for the spotting unit to communicate with the tank. But we're not talking about movement in this thread (at least not yet) -- we're talking about fire.

Steve said it perfectly a few posts ago: you need to try and separate in your own head what you see as the player, who has the entire map in front of you, from what the unit sees in front of him (and what those units with whom it has comm contact can also see). Unless I'm missing some subtlety that others have mastered, this critical distinction really doesn't seem too complicated to me. If the tank can't see the unit, and hasn't detected any evidence that a unit exists there, it shouldn't be able to fire at it...period. You as a responsible player should recognize the inherent realism of this situation and resist the temptation of exploiting a "gamey" way around the intended mechanics. Period.

Now, movement in this context is a whole different beast. You would have to be a seriously dedicated student of realism to do what @Wrath of Dagon is suggesting: To drive a tank through a hedgerow, into an open field that you as the player know is covered by AT assets through visual contact by other friendly units, but is not known by the tank to have such assets becuase it is out of comm with those spotting units. Such player-based control of realistic gameplay would be truly hardcore!

EDIT: Steve and I posted almost simultaneously...and as always, Steve said what I wanted to say so much better.

[Battlefront.com]

I said this earlier, but I am going to repeat it. If a player is annoyed by the UI implications of Relative Spotting, there's an easy solution for this which is already in the game and will 100% solve the problem...

Play in Basic Training Mode. All your sources of complaint, even ones not yet voiced, will go away. Completely.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Steve said it perfectly a few posts ago:

Thanks for saying so, but it seems Wrath of Dragon either missed that part of my post or has still missed the critical point of it. The post you and I just made will hopefully clear it up. As you say, it is a critical thing to wrap ones' head around, but it does involve wrapping This comes easier to some, harder to others. I bet there are tons of people out there who tried the CMx2 Demos and stopped trying to play them because they didn't understand how Relative Spotting works. To someone who completely doesn't get it the game must seem beyond buggy and broken.

Such player-based control of realistic gameplay would be truly hardcore!

Which is why I said I'd be shocked, to the point of a heart attack, to find out that even one of our customers regularly plays the game to this "hardcore" degree. For sure, absolute sure, I don't Relative Spotting does, however, make it harder to do. And that is something I think most CMx2 players intuitively appreciate even if they don't explicitly understand it.

Steve

[Wrath of Dagon]

I'm still flabbergasted that someone still can't understand the logic I'll try again...

In WW2 if a tank was trundling down the road, unaware of an AT Gun ahead of it which WAS known to some other unit, what would it do?

1. Continue to go about its business without taking the AT Gun into account.

2. React in some way, such as ceasing to move, reversing, popping smoke, pumping Area Fire into the spot where the AT Gun definitely is, calling in mortar fire, etc.

Assuming you're not insane, and therefore say #1, we move onto see this situation in game terms.

In a game, under the same exact circumstances as described in the real life example above, what would you as the player do given the same choices? Making what should be a safe assumption here, I'm going to presume that we're in agreement the player would do #2. Yes?

Yes, everyone would do #2 (because it's a game, not reality), therefore it's silly to try to break the UI to make it more annoying to do #2, which everyone will do anyway.

If you are in agreement then you should be able to grasp that there is a fundamental split between realism and game play on an issue like this. The choice open to the gamer is NOT the choice open to the real world tanker moving down the road. So how to deal with issues surrounding the game situation from a UI standpoint?

But neither is the game a perfect simulation of the real world. Things like time compression, lack of liason, prior knowledge etc, means that those things all get abstracted into the player's decisions instead of being explicitly simulated.

If Combat Mission were a brainless RTS game, where realism wasn't even remotely considered, then the answer is really simple. The UI should be optimized to make reacting to the AT Gun threat as easy as possible since there's no downside for the game as a whole (i.e. because realism isn't a significant issue). But Combat Mission isn't a brainless RTS game, and in fact that's why you are all here playing it and not playing Company of Heroes instead (note emphasis on INSTEAD). Therefore realism must matter to you. So why would you want us to optimize the game behavior to work against it's primary design goal? If we do it here, why shouldn't we do it elsewhere when any SINGLE player decides something is annoying him?

Any change in your perspective?

Steve

The realism vs gameplay tradeoff is a fundamental issue for this kind of game, but making me LARP the behavior of my units depending on their in-game knowledge is not the solution. The whole point is to locate the enemy units then delploy reserves to destroy them, the way you do that in game will of necessity diverge from reality. Breaking the UI to make using an otherwise supported and reasonable game mechanic more annoying isn't a solution either.

Now, movement in this context is a whole different beast. You would have to be a seriously dedicated student of realism to do what @Wrath of Dagon is suggesting: To drive a tank through a hedgerow, into an open field that you as the player know is covered by AT assets through visual contact by other friendly units, but is not known by the tank to have such assets becuase it is out of comm with those spotting units. Such player-based control of realistic gameplay would be truly hardcore!

No, it's not a different beast, that's my point. Logically there's no difference between moving using knowledge you don't have and targeting using knowledge you don't have. In fact, you're probably moving him so he can target something he doesn't know about yet.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

At the risk of inviting high levels of snark, I totally get Wrath of Dagon's point.

There really isn't all that much logical distinction between area firing an unseen ATG and stopping a tank in response to that ATG. Both are counter measures to a hidden threat the tank knows nothing about. I do not see the distinction either.

To say one thing is gamey and the other is perfectly fine is inconsistent. Yet people are lining up round the block to call the one naughty and the other sound tactics.

Nowhere does WoD indicate that he doesn't get the split between realism in gameplay or that he should be particularly accommodated in his (and mine) more relaxed attitude to area fire. Just that creating artifical extra hoops is not really the way forward. Seems to me he is just pointing out the people that are not area firing on unseen targets, bless their little hearts, aren't on the Grognard highground that they think they are.

[mjkerner]

Steve, your purposeful perseverence prevailing on this point is principled and praiseworthy, but particular posters' paucity of perspecacity pre-ordains polarization. Perhaps punting is propitious?