Relative Spotting and Intel

[Yoozername]

While there have been some games out lately that are using Relative Spotting (RS), there are stil Intel loop-holes.

One of the things I tried to get into the CM 'cinder-block-mind-set' is that it is not just RS that is the problem. It is also intel-sharing. In the CM2 demo, even on elite mode, you can just over-view the battlefield and get a great intel of all enemy units. Everyone's 'report' is added in.

What I have suggested in the past is that this intel database be limited. Especially for units that are out of communications, suppressed, broken, etc. They might contribute a question marker at best. But having them report what model, caliber, unit and enemy condition is is INTEL_POLLUTION.

Its a gamey tactic to run crews/truck drivers willy-nilly just to add to the polluted-database.

Another intel-pollution is the grunts knowing so much detail even if they are in good order. Many combatants in WWII do not have the modeler's-eye we wargaming people have. To them, all armor might be a tank. All tanks were Tigers, etc.

At 1500 meters, many tank units would not ID exactly a vehicle under a tree that is obscured by brush.

So to really benefit from Relative-Spotting, we need to curb Intel-Pollution. Seeing is one thing; positively IDing another.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
Its a gamey tactic to run crews/truck drivers willy-nilly just to add to the polluted-database.

Another reason not to include cheezy bailed out crew squads.
Trucks are far too slow in PC:K to run anywhere off road let alone willy-nilly.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
One of the things I tried to get into the CM 'cinder-block-mind-set' is that it is not just RS that is the problem. It is also intel-sharing. In the CM2 demo, even on elite mode, you can just over-view the battlefield and get a great intel of all enemy units. Everyone's 'report' is added in.

Since you control multiple units and sight through the eyes of multiple units there's no way else to do this. The RS spots all units spotted by any of yours if just the map is clicked. It spots only those that were spotted from the unit when the unit is clicked.
I've played a great many games and there would not be much to gain by some kind of generic tank to show that its type is not known. One reason is that there are no mixed units. If you ID one T-34 in a pack of tank objects you know the rest are T-34s. Maybe in the future if they include mixed units and have a ETO module with British Fireflies mixed in with regular Shermans this would be useful.

What I have suggested in the past is that this intel database be limited. Especially for units that are out of communications, suppressed, broken, etc. They might contribute a question marker at best. But having them report what model, caliber, unit and enemy condition is is INTEL_POLLUTION.

The RS has a complex spotting function based on a number of factors, not just range or clear terrain. If the spotter or target are moving, are in or behind cover. If the spotter is buttoned up or the target is firing its weapon. If trees are inhibit sighting. It counts from second to second the number of woods poly sides between the spotter and target. A certain number will inhibit sighting to various degrees. But since the game is not real time targets remain visible (they linger) for a bit after they disappear so the player can see them at the end of a turn. This may cause a little frustration sometimes because you think you see a target from last turn because it was moving but when you try to target it the following turn you can no longer do so because it halted or is no longer firing and is not the current turn spotted.

It is probably better if communication is used to issue orders and link chain of command and for morale than a spotting function.

[Yoozername]

Both CM and PC use generic tanks or '?' to represent unknown spotted tanks.  Its a case of spotting something, but not having full Intel on it.

You do not seem to grasp fully my point.  If you click the map, you should not get full Intel details.  Just generic details and the actual spotting/IDing info from certain units should be left out (broken units, suppressed, etc.)

Many people would then claim that to go around this, you could just jump from one unit to the next as needed to 'fill-in' the omni-spotting info.  My take on this is that once you have selected a platoon (clicked any one of the platoon elements) you may not jump around the battlefield.  You are limited to just THAT platoons perspective/intel/spotting (and must complete all orders for that platoon before selecting another platoon).  I would actually want an IRON_MAN mode where the game calculates which platoon/section has the least spotting/intel and is assigned orders first by the player.  That is, the game GIVES you which platoon for orders in a sequential pattern; worst spotting/intel to the best spotting/intel. This way there is no intel pollution from other platoons.

Most people need the gamey info that games give them to play as 'well' as they do.  When abstractions and good modeling limit their gamey play, they become more realistic.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

...My take on this is that once you have selected a platoon (clicked any one of the platoon elements) you may not jump around the battlefield.  You are limited to just THAT platoons perspective/intel/spotting (and must complete all orders for that platoon before selecting another platoon).  I would actually want an IRON_MAN mode where the game calculates which platoon/section has the least spotting/intel and is assigned orders first by the player.  That is, the game GIVES you which platoon for orders in a sequential pattern; worst spotting/intel to the best spotting/intel. This way there is no intel pollution from other platoons....

What you are proposing, while probably more realistic than the current design, strikes me as pretty hardcore and this series is not meant to be a hardcore simulation. From the PCOWS info pages:

"Historical gameplay that is accessible and fun to the novice wargamer."

If an Iron_Man mode could easily be done as an optional rule that would be great for those who want it but it's unlikely to be a high priority for the designers given their target audience.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
I would actually want an IRON_MAN mode where the game calculates which platoon/section has the least spotting/intel and is assigned orders first by the player.  That is, the game GIVES you which platoon for orders in a sequential pattern; worst spotting/intel to the best spotting/intel. This way there is no intel pollution from other platoons.

This might be interesting. One would have to determine what 'best' meant in terms of spotting. Does it mean most units or maybe most dangerous unit? I can't say gamers would like it though. They like more control not less.

Most people need the gamey info that games give them to play as 'well' as they do.  When abstractions and good modeling limit their gamey play, they become more realistic.

Yeah, I hear that. Case in point artillery FOs knowing how many shells the offmap artillery battery has. [X(]

[pzgndr]

I would actually want an IRON_MAN mode where the game calculates which platoon/section has the least spotting/intel and is assigned orders first by the player. That is, the game GIVES you which platoon for orders in a sequential pattern; worst spotting/intel to the best spotting/intel. This way there is no intel pollution from other platoons.

Interesting idea. But one cannot play all platoons each turn and not grasp the overall situation which in turn affects your subsequent decision-making anyway, regardless of how limited the intel may be for the first units in sequence. Even if a multi-player team mode were available, you would still chat with your teammates and know what's going on even if the game prevented you from seeing anything else. So it's not clear what would be gained by a new IRON_MAN mode, unless one is willing and able to forget everything from the previous turn(s)?

When abstractions and good modeling limit their gamey play, they become more realistic.

That's debatable. I always use a two-echelon rule regarding wargames. A game like this with platoon/section units as the abstractions is most useful for simulating battalion level operations and tactics, and maybe company level. But you cannot use it to simulate the operations and tactics of the unit level selected for the abstraction! So necessarily many things at that level are going to be somewhat gamey and unrealistic; abstract by definition.

There's no good way to "fix" the intel pollution "problem" without adding more detail and complexity, and then you're getting away from the original design decisions for the scale and scope of the game. To offset a player's natural "god's eye" perspective of the game map, difficulty levels could perhaps impose longer orders delays or something like that.

[jamespcrowley]

The "gods-eye" view that tends to exist in most, if not all, tactical level wargames is the result, IMO, of a lack of a sufficiently realistic C&C model. Wargamers clamour for realism when it comes to armour thickness, range, colour of uniforms etc. etc. but gleefully ignore what is perhaps the most fundamental aspect of a battle: Command and Control.

This would seem to be because gamers want to be able to control all of their units, all of the time. Fun? maybe, but a mile off the realities of war. Even with relative spotting in place, as Yoozername says, the player is still receiving intel from units that simply could not provide any on the real battlefield. Not just broken or routed units but those that, by virtue of distance or placement, would be out of the C&C loop.

I am not familiar with PCWS but my understanding is that it operates at platoon level and that there are no comany or battalion commanders. So the player is commanding several, in effect, independant platoons and the units in them.

If there were higher level commands, it might be possible, for instance, for a flanking platoon to loose touch with the Company HQ. In that case, the platoon would revert to AI control - following previously given movement orders and protecting itself against threats - until contact is re-established. During this time no futher orders could be given and no information about itself or enemy units would be available to the player. The same wpuld apply to individual units within the platoon.

The downside to this is that the AI would need to be pretty decent and the player may well, in some circumstances, find themselves with very little to command, until C&C was re-established. It would however force playes to really plan, to deploy within realistic parameters and to actively seek to maintain C&C throughout the battle.

Until gamers are prepared to accept that level of realism, "intel pollution" as Yoozername aptly calls it, will prevail, together with all the gaminess that accompanies it.

[pzgndr]

If there were higher level commands, it might be possible, for instance, for a flanking platoon to loose touch with the Company HQ. In that case, the platoon would revert to AI control - following previously given movement orders and protecting itself against threats - until contact is re-established. During this time no futher orders could be given and no information about itself or enemy units would be available to the player.

That sounds better. With AI available, and essentially implemented anyway for controlling friendly movements, why not allow it to take on an enhanced role? Out of control means out of command, so let the AI take over until control is re-established. The old Squad Leader game required leaders to rally their broken units. Same could be done here.

Another aspect of C2 generally lacking is how many orders can be given and executed over time. The old GDW Assault game series had a great little system for command points which managed to pretty accurately model the different strengths and weaknesses between NATO and Warsaw Pact. NATO had company HQs and battalion TOCs, whereas Pact units had battalion HQs and regimental TOCs. NATO had more flexibility for executing commands (facings, movements, fires, etc.) but the Pact made up for their fewer command points by executing battle drills involving whole companies or battalions. The Germans and Soviets in WWII had about the same strengths and weaknesses, so a similar system could be considered here.

[Yoozername]

The gradual info pool, for the player, will become filled in over time.  These type games are always time limited also.  In reality, an overall commander would get a grasp of the situation too.  So it is not all that un-realistic.
 
I also like the limitation of formations (platoons, sections, company).  I like the 'activation' principle.  To change a formations tactical posture, there is some consequence.  An example would be a tank platoon behind a wall in a DEFENSE posture.  If the player changes that platoon's posture during the orders phase, there is a decision 'roll' to see if it does indeed change, and if so, how much.  A unit in poor C&C might get a change (lets say to attack) but its movement commands are limited by type and also by how far (movement length).  This simulates them organizing and getting the word out.
 
Modifiers to this are based on communications equipment, command proximity, experience, etc.

[FNG]

I think that there are some very interesting points raised here, but are they valid for the current scale of the game? Given the limited size of the battlefield which is played on, I think that the current system 'works', for want of a better word. If the scale of the game was to increase, then I think some of the ideas here would be more relevant and have a real impact.

[Yoozername]

It does 'work' but is predictable and ultimately gamey.  Much of what I often suggest is optional settings for the game's mechanics.  Just because a game has simplistic design goal does not exclude it from having more difficult or realistic settings (IMO).

Having more realistic settings could also make the AI more challenging.  It gives the game more play-value over time.  A game should be easy to interact with (the user interface) but should offer various levels of challenge in its play.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: FNG
I think that there are some very interesting points raised here, but are they valid for the current scale of the game? Given the limited size of the battlefield which is played on, I think that the current system 'works', for want of a better word. If the scale of the game was to increase, then I think some of the ideas here would be more relevant and have a real impact.

One thing that I think may have been left out from the miniatures game is a bonus given to units in direct communication with their platoon mates (or at least their platoon commander.) What might cause fractionally better sighting is give a couple of sighting factors if within some sort of mutual support distance.

The system works because as a mini-game it has been playtested for many many years. The CnC is intergrated with the sighting system as well as with the morale system. You change one aspect too much you foobar the other systems.

If you limit the players too much and just give them tunnel-vision ground level from one unit at a time, you may get a more 'realistic' game. But they will play something else, more gamey, but that gives them more freedom.

[Yoozername]

Unlike archaic miniature games, computer games can cater to many styles and tastes within the same game.  Difficulty levels, settings, etc can make one game many things to many people.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
Unlike archaic miniature games, computer games can cater to many styles and tastes within the same game.  Difficulty levels, settings, etc can make one game many things to many people.

You obviously don't grasp the nature of miniature games. Where you can add or remove any level of detail or even change the game rules. Almost everyone who plays them becomes somewhat of a game designer themselves as they tweak things to their liking at one time or another. So much the pity that you think that computer games give you a wider variety of play options.

If anything miniature rules are too flexible. With rule passages subject to interpretation. Usually a group of players will arrive at a consensus but if not there is the argument phase. The computer then is useful in having everyone play by the same rules.

[FNG]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

It does 'work' but is predictable and ultimately gamey.  Much of what I often suggest is optional settings for the game's mechanics.  Just because a game has simplistic design goal does not exclude it from having more difficult or realistic settings (IMO).

Having more realistic settings could also make the AI more challenging.  It gives the game more play-value over time.  A game should be easy to interact with (the user interface) but should offer various levels of challenge in its play.

I genuinely like some of the ideas that you have mooted, and others less so [;)]. I guess the key dividing line is between game and simulator (both have their pros and cons, champions and detractors). I think that a good game, via abstraction, can produce results that would be very similar in a simulation without going all the way down that road. I have nothing against simulations, but in this case you would be creating a niche in an already niche market, and is that financially viable for the game producers?

I hear what you are saying about having different modes for different playing styles, but if one accepts that development time is finite, are these features going to attract enough purchasers who would not otherwise buy the game to justify the time spent on implementation? Are they going to noticeably improve gameplay for the majority of players? I am not saying that these features should not be available - I just doubt that they make the 'Very important' or 'Must do' lists.

[Yoozername]

No.  I do not like playing with toy soldiers or board games for that matter.  Computer simulations/games are much superior and have the potential to be so much more.  The thought of long extended arguments over some legal-ese matters regarding little painted soldiers puts me off my war-rush.

Development time for each game is finite.  But each improvement should be an better iteration.  The CM1 series supposedly sold less as the game wore on.  In my opinion, it was never really developed to its potential.  Its evolution was from a broken game, to a badly modeled infantry game to a OK game (CMAK).

PC is somewhat a plain-burger right now and I hope better modeling and other computer improvements gets it away from its toy-soldier roots.

The issue of intel-pollution is not present in board/toy games because its another binary spotted/not-spotted simulation. Again, the issue is the amount of target-info and the intel-pollution the game gets.