Identification of Units

[xian]

I'm playing on Iron, and my 'Regular' Engineer Team manages to ascertain quite a lot of information about an enemy unit within 2 seconds of 'spotting' them moving behind bocage, and not firing (see image).

I would have thought that, at best, they might have figured out that it was an infantry unit.

Perhaps showing: "Unknown Infantry Unit" in the GUI. Indicating that they have spotted anything from a machine gun team to a full infantry squad or even an HQ unit.

I'd also like to see some GUI feedback about sound contacts, such as: "Sounds like: Infantry Team", or "Sounds like: Armoured Vehicle"

Also, it would be nice to see some misidentification of contacts, especially with less experienced units.

What do you guys think?

[sandy]

I completely agree;this is a good example of CM2 going backwards from CM1

Info on all enemy units is FAR too complete and quick, always.

CM1 did this so much better.

How on earth do I identify arm of service, whether a unit is an HQ, or the precise type of enemy AFV within seconds, every time, and with 100% accuracy ALL the time, even on the highest difficulty levels?? (and right across the map)?

[finalcut]

Maybe this could be modded?Not sure if thats possible but if it is,maybe some Mod master will read this.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Borg spotting verses Borg ID'ing.

Regards

KR

[Wego McPbem]

This is why I don't see the point in playing on anything higher than warrior at the moment. Restricting to generic infantry markers is pointless when you can just click on them and see exactly what they are anyway.

[YankeeDog]

To be sure, there are other differences between Warrior and Iron...

But I would like to see the unit info panel for enemy units changed to something very simple like just "Infantry" or something like that, for Iron level play at least. Right now, I just restrict myself to not clicking on enemy units until after the battle is over. I also avoid deliberately using close-up view of enemy units to discover their uniforms and weapons load-out (this is an easy way to find enemy command and FO teams, even without looking at the info panel).

[Wego McPbem]

To be sure, there are other differences between Warrior and Iron...

What differences are those? I thought the only differences were generic infantry icons and the only being able to see what the selected unit sees on iron thing. According to the manual everything else is the same.

Basically the same information is available to you on the levels above warrior, you just have to click around a bit more to get it. I suppose that may make a real difference in realtime but it doesn't in wego unless you both agree to not click on enemy units.

[YankeeDog]

Well, there's that whole ambiguous "special restrictions on what the player can do and when" clause in the description of Iron in the manual...

Based on re-playing the same scenario with the same plan on different difficulty levels, I am pretty sure there are differences in spotting, and also the rate that spotting spreads around the C2 chain, in Iron vs. Warrior.

Hard to test, and perhaps I'm making an incorrect inference here based on subjective experience, but this sure looks like this is what is happening.

[sawomi]

What differences are those? I thought the only differences were generic infantry icons and the only being able to see what the selected unit sees on iron thing. According to the manual everything else is the same...

See post of YankeeDog +

In warrior mode explanation manual talks about "...takes a realistic amount of time...", when it come to arty and buddy-aid.

...and after mention of "special restrictions on what the player can do and when" in the iron mode section, the manual even goes on and alludes "...While even more realistic than the other settings...".

Buddy-aid in iron mode (real treatment of wounded soldiers, not just weapon+ammo sacking) can take very different amounts of time.

Never played any other mode than Iron, but in this way I'm always on the save side when it comes to the question of how to play the game in the most realistic mode possible.

[Wego McPbem]

Interesting, perhaps I'm mistaken then. I assumed that the restrictions mentioned were just referring to the more obvious changes on iron. Those quotes are pretty vague though, hard to tell exactly what they mean. Would be nice to get an official explanation.

[sawomi]

That's exactly as I see it. I also would like to get an official statement. Would also nice to know how high on the list a better FOW implention is. Will we see it in one of the modules of CMBN or will we have to wait at least to the Bulge-game?

[jonp]

I always play on 2nd to hardest level (not sure what it is right now) and I always seem to be able to ID guys right away as well.

From reading the rules, I thought it said it would be hard to ID units from a distance

Thx

jonpfl

[Baneman]

I personally cannot see how it could be difficult to implement FoW in the GUI - after all, there must be code to get the specific information to the unit information part of the GUI - surely therefore, all that needs to be done is replace all and any information with the word "Infantry" or "Tank". Perhaps it could be restricted to Elite and Iron levels of difficulty, but it should certainly be doable.

[Erik Springelkamp]

I personally cannot see how it could be difficult to implement FoW in the GUI - after all, there must be code to get the specific information to the unit information part of the GUI - surely therefore, all that needs to be done is replace all and any information with the word "Infantry" or "Tank". Perhaps it could be restricted to Elite and Iron levels of difficulty, but it should certainly be doable.

There is one fundamental difficulty with FOW wrt. enemy units:

The actual 3D shapes determine hit and damage, and there is no 'fake' shape to show to the enemy.

So if you spot an enemy, you can go close, and examine the 3D shape, and then discover its function by looking at its stuff.

Not much point in hiding these details in the UI, when someone can get this information if he makes the effort to study the shape. At least not in two-player games.

In solo-play a mod for the enemy icons me be helpful, but still one would be tempted to look at the details in the bottom panel when in a difficult spot.

[jonp]

There is one fundamental difficulty with FOW wrt. enemy units:

The actual 3D shapes determine hit and damage, and there is no 'fake' shape to show to the enemy.

So if you spot an enemy, you can go close, and examine the 3D shape, and then discover its function by looking at its stuff.

Not much point in hiding these details in the UI, when someone can get this information if he makes the effort to study the shape. At least not in two-player games.

In solo-play a mod for the enemy icons me be helpful, but still one would be tempted to look at the details in the bottom panel when in a difficult spot.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't they have generic block tanks in CM1 until you got close enough to ID them?

Thx

jonpfl

[YankeeDog]

@ jonp: Yes, there were "Generic" tanks in CMx1. Due to the way the new engine literally calculates hits based on the 3D model, this type of feature is not as easily implemented in CMx2.

@ Erick Springelkamp: While I do understand that it's still possible to "cheat" the system by getting up close to enemy units with the camera and seeing what they're carrying, I would still like to see only generic info in the UI at Iron level. Just because it's still possible to gain unrealistically gamey info via a gameplay trick or two, doesn't reduce the value of making it a little harder to do so for those of us who like our game more towards the "simulation" side of the scale. Those who don't like it can always dial things back to Warrior, if they want to.

[SteveP]

Going back specifically to the OP:

What of importance do you specifically know that makes this unrealistic? You would probably IRL be able to distinguish a rifle unit from a specialist team (e.g., an MG or a Shrek). You would probably be able to distinguish a large rifle unit from a small one. So your spotter decides the unit is probably about half a rifle squad. I agree it's a bit annoying to know what the unit is called, but I haven't found that info to be actionable in any way.

Not trying to be provocative. Just curious.

[YankeeDog]

Problem is that you instantly get the chapter and verse of the team's exact function and position in the enemy TOE, on very limited information such as the spotting of only 1 or 2 members of a team.

For example, you might only spot a single rifle-carrying schlub, but if you click on him, you'll instantly know he's from the enemy Company Command unit, a high-value target.

I have no problem with this information being revealed if most or all of a unit has been spotted, and been under good observation for a period of time. But right now it's pretty much instant.

[SteveP]

For example, you might only spot a single rifle-carrying schlub, but if you click on him, you'll instantly know he's from the enemy Company Command unit, a high-value target.

That's a good example, though not the one in the OP. I have to agree that it is a mystery why this info can't be fuzzed up a bit. Some specific info shouldn't be known until the end of the game. And I can see where it might be difficult to program some gradual revealing of info over the course of the battle, but it would be good to know if the engine simply won't allow anything different from what we have now.

[SteveP]

It may also be worth pointing out that during the time that the enemy unit is only a contact, you are often getting less info than you'd probably have IRL. For example, distinguishing if the sound you heard was an MG or rifle fire was probably fairly easy. Maybe BFC would argue that this helps to balance things out to some extent.

I also believe that concealment is not as good as it probably was IRL, especially in any type of prepared position. If enemy units stayed as contacts only for a longer period of time, this might help.

[YankeeDog]

I agree that a more complicated, gradual revelation of enemy info would be great... probably not something that we're going to see for a while due to other things being higher priority, but it would be a nice feature.

For now, for Iron level play I'd be happy if the text in the unit info on the GUI was simply reduced to "Infantry", or "Gun" or whatever, as appropriate, and we had to glean any other information about an enemy unit from the game display.

[xian]

I've just started playing PBEM and I have to say that the level of unit feedback available to your opponent really seems unrealistic and makes defending tricky.

It's hard to hoodwink your opponent if he is given such detailed information within a second of spotting you.

[A Canadian Cat]

I agree that a more complicated, gradual revelation of enemy info would be great... probably not something that we're going to see for a while due to other things being higher priority, but it would be a nice feature.

For now, for Iron level play I'd be happy if the text in the unit info on the GUI was simply reduced to "Infantry", or "Gun" or whatever, as appropriate, and we had to glean any other information about an enemy unit from the game display.

+1 for that.

I am sticking with Warrior too because Ellette uses the infantry symbol for all contacts including AT guns and MGs. I would prefer to use a setting that showed only generic infantry symbol and text in the UI for actual infantry units. Officers try to look as much like regular soldiers as possible but an AT gun does not look like a soldier once it is spotted especially if it fires. The opposition can tell the difference.

I know from talking with my dad that company and battalion HQ units spent effort making sure they looked as close to regular infantry units as they could. Most of the officers he served with carried regular assault rifles so they looked more like the guys they were commanding even though the official "standard" was to only carry a side arm or possibly an SMG.

I would love to see a system that progressed from the current '?' to generic infantry contact or gun contact. After a while of good spotting experienced troops could probably pick out the officers etc. So the next progression after being under observation could be to HQ and MG.

In short the full id that happens is Warrior is not really right (we go from ? to full knowledge of the units purpose). But the never knowing an AT gun from an MG nest from a bunch of soldiers that happens at Ellette and Iron is not right either.

So for now I'm sticking with Warrior since I could not stand missing out on spotted AT guns just because I did not take a closer look.

[SteveP]

My theory is that BFC assumes players will impose certain rules on themselves when playing Elite or Iron, in order to make playing against the AI more challenging -- but not to increase FOW or realism. For example, you could choose to never click on an enemy icon when playing Elite, or choose to give orders to each of your units only by clicking +/- to go from one unit to the next. Unless you impose rules like that, Elite/Iron don't seem to be very good choices, since they otherwise just slow you down but don't otherwise increase FOW or realism.

My best guess.

[mjkerner]

To be sure, there are other differences between Warrior and Iron...

But I would like to see the unit info panel for enemy units changed to something very simple like just "Infantry" or something like that, for Iron level play at least. Right now, I just restrict myself to not clicking on enemy units until after the battle is over. I also avoid deliberately using close-up view of enemy units to discover their uniforms and weapons load-out (this is an easy way to find enemy command and FO teams, even without looking at the info panel).

That's what I do too. [i only discovered that I could click on the enemy icon and get info a couple of days ago !] Those faded contacts (sound?) I just assume to be old info unless they're shooting back or moving.