Matrix Games Forums

Even if the game does incorporate true relative spotting, the gamey gamer will just use omnicontrol as a workaround.

Omnicontrol is when a player just inspects what one unit can see, jumps to another unit and compares, then goes back to the first unit and issues orders using this ill-gotten spotting intel.

An example is a pak38 ATG is selected. It only has a 3x optics and can not differentiate amongst some vehciles in its LOS but at great range. It is only seeing that 4 afv are out there. Type/model/etc can not be discerned.

So the gamey player then jumps to a Panther that is closer to those afv. It has a better view due to the range difference and it has better optics and height. It sees 3 T34/76 and a SU76.

The player then jumps back to the pak38 and targets the SU76. he uses the panther to target the t34s.

A realistic way to limit this is to have the player not come back and issue orders. Once a unit is selected, it must be 'played'. In some cases, perhaps a player can jump around within a platoon (that has proper LOS and communication).

An old idea I had was have the game determine which platoons know the 'least' spotted enemys. Each platoon gets an overall 'awaremess' value and THAT platoons which see the least, are the ones the player must 'play' first.

So the game would 'present' the player with the platoon which has the least intel first. That platoons elements are given orders first. After that is finished, the next less aware platoon is given orders. This is done by a company by company basis.

So a quick example might be...

Infantry company has 2 platoons in the front line, 1 platoon back and the company HQ (with attached heavy weapons} somewhat in between the three platoons.

The game determines that the reserve platoon is the one that sees 'least. It is therefore selected to be 'activated' first. Eneemy units that are 'shown' are only those that are 'seen' by this platoon during orders phase (or reaction phase). After each of its elements are given orders, then the next platoon is presented to the player.

One might think the HQ would be next. But it is given special weighting (waiting) since its communications level is higher than the other platoons. Field phones, flares, runners, hand signals, etc. 'convey' its subordinates info to him. Under certain circumstances, bombardment, great distance, inexperience, casualties, commo breakdown, etc; it may not actually be the 'last-guy' and it must be ordered-out before it gets the whole situation.

In the case where the company HQ IS the last 'platoon' being activated, it is given a somewhat company level perspective of enemy units spotted. It can therefore make decisions on a company level being the effect.



This could all be optional and is only meant as a realistic level of play.

From another thread

The only levels of identification are "?" meaning you know something is there but no idea what and total knowledge.

But, sighting takes into acount a few pages of modifiers such as unit experience, terrain, firing, moving, weather etc. However, only 2 degrees of knowledge.

hope that helps!


I have to say the CM multilevels of identification are prefered in my opinion. They add to the fog of war. They also illustrate experience levels of troops. Having such a binary system will certainly be abused by the player somehow.

An example would be a soviet conscript rifle squad spotting a panzer. It passes its spotting test easily enough since the panzer is close, making noise and is in some scattered trees. But can this conscropit squad really identify the model of the panzer?

Giving the player too much information will lead to gamey behaviour IOM>

Ive thought it over and feel that at least 3 levels (preferably 4) are really needed.

1 could be a question mark, 2 a generic vehicle or infantry symbol (depending on type) and 3 would be 'full' knowledge.

Full info could be dependant on a setting. This 'full' detail might be watered down itself.

I ponder 'why have relative spotting if the identification model just reverts to something this simplistic'. I really hope that playtesters can be objective enough to see past winning/having-fun and truly give constructive feedback.