Sensors that see into the fog of war

[Quadhelix]

Subject:
Sensors that see into the fog of war

Description:
The basic idea is for units (or at least certain units) to have sensors that work somewhat like limited-range version of the Power Signature Scan or Tiberium Vibration Scan in that the sensors can reveal specific things beneath the fog of war. The main difference between these sensors and a unit's regular sight is that the sensors don't reveal everything, only certain things. Most units' sensors, for example, might not pick up infantry and some units might have sensors that can spot only structures (for scouting the enemy base) or aircraft (useful for an AA platform or air superiority fighter).

Sensors would also raise the possibility of multiple types of stealth and/or multiple types of detector.

Consider, for example, that a unit's sensors might detect stealth enemies, but not the unit's traditional "vision." If that particular unit's sensors were designed to pick up structures, then it could see stealth/cloaked/camouflaged structures from well beyond its ability to see units, but it could never spot cloaked units. Conversely, a unit that can detect stealth enemies with its "vision," but not its sensors, could spot any stealth enemy that got close enough, but only those that got close.

On the issue of multiple types of stealth, there could be traditional "visual stealth" and the new "sensor stealth." Visual stealth hides the unit from the sight and sensors of non-detectors (visual stealth would do little good if the unit showed up on an enemy tank's sensors anyway). Conversely, sensor stealth hides a unit from all sensors, even those of detectors. Some units (I'm thinking Stealth Tanks here) might have both forms of stealth, meaning that they could only be detected by the traditional vision of a detector unit.

Of course, these two ideas (multiple types of detector and multiple types of stealth) do not necessarily require one another, but I think that they might combine well.

Pros:
-Allows more specialized units (e.g., scouts that can pick up buildings from a distance, but not units)
-Can be either fairly simple (one type of detector and one type of stealth) or fairly intricate (multiple types of detector and stealth)

Cons
-Would probably only work with maps larger than traditional C&C maps

[Borreh]

I like the general idea, but do not overcomplicate it. With multiple types of everything you'd need to learn the game for a few days before getting to understand it.

If anything, limit it to two types of stealth: sensor and complete stealth. All modern stealth systems are radar invisibility so it wouldn't make sense for a unit to be visualy invisible but visible on sensors, since most of targeting now is done by radar scan and not by visual aim.

One tweak possible IMO is the detectable-ity of units. Buildings would be detected from the longest range, then heavy vehicles, then light vehicles, then infantry. Dunno how with aircraft, since even today most of new designs are somewhat stealth to a degree. Infantry could be very hard to spot and would appear just before the shroud of war ends. This would make infantry even more useful even in lategame for surprise attacks.

I like the idea, radar in SupCom works this way and is very useful.

However, you rarely look around the shrouded-off area in C&Cs. To make it useful and not distracting, a larger zoom would be neded. I vote for the stat zoom from SupCom - It's really very useful and would fit C&C gameplay.

[IonorRea]

As for stealth and detection:

Look at Stealth & stealth detection - in point 3.Gameplay
Imo bit more elegant and simpler solution.

http://www.commandandconquer.com/for...l=1#post100583

Beyond visual range radar or sensor of some sort isn't good idea as it reduce need for scouting for early prevention against airstrikes or artylery. This can works well in games with big maps or without generals powers but not necessery useful for Generals gameplay style.

[Quadhelix]

I like the general idea, but do not overcomplicate it. With multiple types of everything you'd need to learn the game for a few days before getting to understand it.

It might just seem complicated because I communicated it poorly.

Idea in Short: Normal sensors cannot pick up any sort of stealth enemy. Detector sensors can pick up enemies that are only "optically camouflaged" but not "sensor stealth."

Consider the following

-A Predator Tank's sensors can pick up a Scorpion Tank but not a stealth enemy like a cloaked Scorpion Tank (e.g., because of the Cloaking Field power or because it's near a Disruption Tower) or, for example, a Raider Buggy (the idea is that Raider Buggies are sensor stealth).

-Mobile Sensor Arrays have detecting sensors but no optical detection, so they can detect the Scorpion Tank whether or not the Tank is cloaked. However, an MSA's sensors cannot pick up Raider Buggies and MSAs have no way to detect Stealth Tanks (which are both cloaked and sensor-stealth).

-Pitbulls have optical detection but not sensor-based detection. In other words, the Pitbull's sensors work the same way as the Predator's, but the Pitbull can see any enemy within visual range, cloaked or otherwise.

If anything, limit it to two types of stealth: sensor and complete stealth. All modern stealth systems are radar invisibility so it wouldn't make sense for a unit to be visualy invisible but visible on sensors, since most of targeting now is done by radar scan and not by visual aim.

That's sort of what I had in mind - what I called "visual stealth" hides a unit from both visual observation and from sensors. The issue is how these two types of stealth would respond to detectors.

On a side note, nothing says that the sensors have to represent radar. It could, for example, represent some sort of magnetic resonance imaging sensor, which modern stealth technology probably could not block.

One tweak possible IMO is the detectable-ity of units. Buildings would be detected from the longest range, then heavy vehicles, then light vehicles, then infantry.

This seems a bit complicated: if the sensors were binary (it's either in range or it isn't), then their range could be easily identified on the map with line markers like those in C&C 3 and RA3 that mark the edge of your build-radius.

On the other hand, that idea still works with yours, it just means that most units would have produce series of concentric circles. Which might look cool.

Dunno how with aircraft, since even today most of new designs are somewhat stealth to a degree. Infantry could be very hard to spot and would appear just before the shroud of war ends. This would make infantry even more useful even in lategame for surprise attacks.

Well, as I mentioned, sensors don't necessarily have to represent radar.

Still, I agree with the idea of infantry being "hard to spot" - I had considered the possibility that they might not show up on sensors at all.

As for stealth and detection:

Look at Stealth & stealth detection - in point 3.Gameplay
Imo bit more elegant and simpler solution.

http://www.commandandconquer.com/for...l=1#post100583

More elegant? Maybe. Simple? Not really.

With my idea for multiple stealth/detector types, all the conditions are yes/no considerations: a unit's sensors can either detect cloaked enemies or they cannot, a unit is either immune to sensors or it is not, a unit can spot cloaked enemies or it cannot, etc.

Your idea throws in a continuum variable: a unit could have a stealth value of 0, 600, or any number in between. Worse, this number is hidden from the player. Unlike Starcraft, most C&C games don't show the player their units' stats like damage, etc. Even Starcraft doesn't show the player units sight radius - which is the number needed to interpret your own units stealth value.

In other words, not only is your idea, in practice, far too complicated to understand, but it probably wouldn't even communicate the player that he/she needs in order to try.

Beyond visual range radar or sensor of some sort isn't good idea as it reduce need for scouting for early prevention against airstrikes or artylery.

Couldn't the same argument be made of units with large sight radii? How do sensors exacerbate the problem?

This can works well in games with big maps or without generals powers but not necessery useful for Generals gameplay style.

Subject:
Cons
-Would probably only work with maps larger than traditional C&C maps

[Golan2781]

I think having different types of sensors could definitely add to the game.

It might be a good idea to split this depending on the type of unit. Sensor equipped units (Scouts, MSAs, Radar stations) and aircraft give full view of an area (as in CNC3), whereas most other units spot only according to proper LOS.
Depending on the complexity desired, various different sensors types could be differentiated. For example, tanks might be equipped with heat sensors, allowing them to pick up strong heat signatures (other vehicles, structures) behind obstacles, whereas the low heat profile of infantry could not be seen through obstacles.

Now, the important thing is to keep it simple. There should IMO be no more than three sensor and three stealth categories at most. Ideally, they are tied to unit types, like infantry being invisible to heat sensors while tanks are not.
One thing we've been experimenting with for TSR are SupCom/MechCommander style sensors. That is, sensors with above average range but instead of actually revealing the units, they simply mark them by category. For example, a Scorpion Tank, Flame Tank, Predator Tank and APC would all appear as a 'medium vehicle' marker while not in line of sight but in sensor range.

(MSA on the right, enemies on the lower left)

[Golan2781]

A major component of Stealth is that it is independent from vision. If you mix the two, Stealth looses its major advantage (being able to move in plain sight) as almost every unit will effectively be a detector and balancing requires to take into account the additional relation. The first is a major problem if you don't just consider unit vs. unit examples (as in your linked post) but army vs. army - a Stealth Comanche could sneak up on one Gattling, but four Comanches could not sneak up on four Gattlings. The second makes balancing much harder as stealth/vision cannot be adjusted freely.

Edit:
Where did the post I replied to go? oO

[IonorRea]

More elegant? Maybe. Simple? Not really.

With my idea for multiple stealth/detector types, all the conditions are yes/no considerations: a unit's sensors can either detect cloaked enemies or they cannot, a unit is either immune to sensors or it is not, a unit can spot cloaked enemies or it cannot, etc.

Your idea throws in a continuum variable: a unit could have a stealth value of 0, 600, or any number in between. Worse, this number is hidden from the player. Unlike Starcraft, most C&C games don't show the player their units' stats like damage, etc. Even Starcraft doesn't show the player units sight radius - which is the number needed to interpret your own units stealth value.

In other words, not only is your idea, in practice, far too complicated to understand, but it probably wouldn't even communicate the player that he/she needs in order to try.
Couldn't the same argument be made of units with large sight radii? How do sensors exacerbate the problem?

My system works on rule that better stealth require also better sensors, better sensors are on unit easy recognisable with better visual detection range of unit and it's natural to think that you will be able detect camouflaged Rebel easier than Stealth Fighter, while in Generals you have visual and stealth range but they aren't for most units and defense same nor based on any rule, just tweaked by developers, so in reality current system in Generals is much harder to learn because you can't predict sensor range like in my case by bigger visual range of unit, but you must find it by trial and error while there stay not much logical fact that Rebel or Stealth Fighter are detectable at same distance which somewhat reduce stealth usefulness as exensive Stealth Fighter have same stealth effectivity like cheapest infantry unit after upgrade.
You solving this problem by using multiple stealth types and sensors to counter it, so you create multiple units each with different sensor for detecting specific enemy or allow have scout units multiple sensors so you archieve same thing like me but you will need more stealth values to do it. I can't see how this can be simpler solution or easier to learn?


To second problem, beyond visual range sensor is bad idea as most popular maps are small so any increase in visual or beyond visual detection will have negative impact on gameplay and yes it doesn't much matter if it's just sensor or increased visual range, in end it reduce need for scouting and make hit and run attacks or creating forward bases (like for GLA essential Tunnel Network spamming across the map) harder to possible.
This reduce need for fast reactions and thrill from unknown which encourage need for constant scouting, which keeps fast pace in Generals MP...

A major component of Stealth is that it is independent from vision. If you mix the two, Stealth looses its major advantage (being able to move in plain sight) as almost every unit will effectively be a detector and balancing requires to take into account the additional relation. The first is a major problem if you don't just consider unit vs. unit examples (as in your linked post) but army vs. army - a Stealth Comanche could sneak up on one Gattling, but four Comanches could not sneak up on four Gattlings. The second makes balancing much harder as stealth/vision cannot be adjusted freely.

Where stealth looses is imo fact that have same effectivity for every unit no matter how expensive.
Adding more values for sensor units instead of one for every stealthed unit to achieve same goal not make balancing necessary easier and as there aren't rules to govern stealth vs sensor balance like in my case it can be in reality much harder to do and certainly more complicated to balance like system used in Generals, although it can somewhat compensate it with better realism but this is in quastion too as modern system use multiple sensors to cover greater range of stealth solutions.

As stealth value on units is variable not fixed in my solution you have actualy better ability to control stealth although your ability to detect is limited by vision range (so units with low visual range have low or no detection capability), which is reason why I add restriction that stealthed units on ground have increased stealth value against units seeking them from air as their visual range is standartly bigger but they also seek from altitude which add distance thus reduce sensor effectiveness even when are right above stealth ground unit.
I also proposed to add same stealth bonus for mines vs air otherwise every airplane will be able detect stealth which haven't much sense.

I think that my soluiton only need this additional rules which I explained in provided link to work properly, for example:
air vs ground: +100 stealth for every ground stealthed unit searched from air
air vs underground: if detecting mines or maybe also Tunnel Networks from air underground stealthed stuff get +150 bonus for their stealth.

Maybe also can be good to add infantry some bonus for easier chance to find mines soon enough in comparison to relatively blind for this kind of threat vehicles, if its for example advanced infantry, commando or promoted unit with better visual range (soldier with experience know what he is looking for and find it easier).

[Golan2781]

Was anything of that actually meant to directly address what I said? oO

[IonorRea]

A major component of Stealth is that it is independent from vision. If you mix the two, Stealth looses its major advantage (being able to move in plain sight) as almost every unit will effectively be a detector and balancing requires to take into account the additional relation.

As stealth value on units is variable not fixed in my solution you have actualy better ability to control stealth although your ability to detect is limited by vision range (so units with low visual range have low or no detection capability)...

So translation is: you gain more than you loose and it make game more sensible thus easier to learn while adding depth.

The first is a major problem if you don't just consider unit vs. unit examples (as in your linked post) but army vs. army - a Stealth Comanche could sneak up on one Gattling, but four Comanches could not sneak up on four Gattlings. The second makes balancing much harder as stealth/vision cannot be adjusted freely.

Which is described in link as positive thing, you don't have absolute stealth and absolute detection, you need to do micromanagment to fully exploit potential of your units otherwise it can be countered easly, same like there is no much point in building Hummers when you want them use like "army" by the rule "easy to learn hard to master".
Stealthed units at least in Generals was special stuff not your front line tanks...
Stealthed Comanches with ability to kill army of Quads by simply buy stealth and rocket pods upgrade and then riding over it and exterminate everything just by using all fireworks you got was awful example how stealth can't work as "army" in future and so far Stealth Commanche concept wasn't applied to any other C&C which is only good because absolute stealth that require absolute detector made Comanche too powerul and very expensive to counter for non-USA factions which needed army of stealth detecting units or defense for cover from every direction in order to not being useless.

[Quadhelix]

My system works on rule that better stealth require also better sensors, better sensors are on unit easy recognisable with better visual detection range of unit and it's natural to think that you will be able detect camouflaged Rebel easier than Stealth Fighter...

The problem is that your system revolves are around two stats (stealth value and vision radius) that can take arbitrary values and that the player has no way of figuring out. Yes, the player might be able to figure out that a Stealth Fighter is harder to detect than a Rebel, but they won't have any way of figuring out how much harder, nor how close they can get their Rebel to an enemy unit without it being detected.

You solving this problem by using multiple stealth types and sensors to counter it, so you create multiple units each with different sensor for detecting specific enemy or allow have scout units multiple sensors so you archieve same thing like me but you will need more stealth values to do it. I can't see how this can be simpler solution or easier to learn?

First, my idea wasn't trying to solve a specific problem, but rather create a tool that can be adapted to solve any number of problems, even ones that have not come up yet.

Second, my system is certainly easier to learn because there are only 4 possibilities for a stealth unit: 1) the unit is not stealth at all; 2) the unit is not visually stealth (no camouflage, cloaking device, etc.), but does not show up on enemy sensors; 3) the unit is "visually" stealth (but not "sensor" stealth) and thus can only be found by detector units; and 4) the unit has both "visual" and "sensor" stealth, meaning it has to be visually observed by a detector. Each of these possibilities can be mentioned in a one-sentence blurb in the unit's description.

Your system needs the player to have psychic powers to learn it, because that's the only way that they can find the stealth values of their units and the vision range of enemy units - or, on the other end, how closely they have to group their units to keep enemy stealth units from sneaking through.

To second problem, beyond visual range sensor is bad idea as most popular maps are small so any increase in visual or beyond visual detection will have negative impact on gameplay and yes it doesn't much matter if it's just sensor or increased visual range, in end it reduce need for scouting and make hit and run attacks or creating forward bases (like for GLA essential Tunnel Network spamming across the map) harder to possible.
This reduce need for fast reactions and thrill from unknown which encourage need for constant scouting, which keeps fast pace in Generals MP...

You're assuming that the units' vision radii would remain the same and the sensors would be tacked on outside that rather than, for example, setting a unit's sensor range as its current vision radius and then shortening the vision radius.

Also, sensors have a number of limitations that make other forms of scouting desireable. First, there are a number of unit-types, such as infantry or "sensor stealth" units, that can be spotted visually but do not show up on sensors. Second, my thinking was that scout units would have sensors that could only pick up buildings, not units, forcing you to scout the enemy to learn his unit composition, numbers, etc.