There is actually a range of issues in identification:
First: Is there something there? Second: What is it? Third: Is it Friendly?
Most games give the players complete knowledge of all three areas. Some
games (double-blind types usually) will limit the players knowledge of
unit positions, types and/or affiliation.
Most games also freely give out the information as the position and unit
type. The players will know that Unit X is on the hilltop and dug-in, or
that Unit Y is located at the edge of the buildings. Also it is rare that
squads are mistaken for platoons or companies for squads, and even more rare
would armor units be mistaken for infantry.
Finally, very few games have a mechanism for IFF confusion and generally let
both players know who owns what unit.
Ideally, a game system would:
a) Be double-blind with each player only having the information that
their units or technology would provide (i.e. if you have no eye in the sky,
you can't see the enemy forces dug in on the reverse side of the hill, until
you get line of sight to it.)
b) Limit player knowledge of what a unit is and what it's size is. For
instance you spot 6 guys entering a building - a) is it really an
infantry squad, a mechanized infantry squad (i.e. there is an APC around
somewhere?) or even an armored platoon and you just spotted some crew members
doing reconnaissance on foot? Are you faced with a squad or is there a platoon
or two hidden behind them waiting to open up on you?
c) Using the double-blind system, have units fall in and out of contact
- units that are out of contact disappear from the board to be replaced
by a "last known" marker which may or may not represent their actual
location and status. When they re-appear, they will only have a generic
marker and need to be identified or re-contacted before they can be used
again.
Unfortunately, these are exactly the things that a computer does well (i.e.
Combat Mission:Beyond Overlord), but that misses the feel of miniatures. If
there were someway to combine the two...
--Binhan
[quoted original message omitted]
> On 8/30/05, B Lin <lin@rxkinetix.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately, these are exactly the things that a computer does well
I'm sure there eventually will be, and it will be quite expensive at first.
Some sort of table made up of sensors with minis that have embedded chips....
Actually, you'd just about have to have multi-blind; to get the full
feel of IFF confusion, you should have that dug in group just slightly
possibly be on your side. And, to get the full feeling, they have to be
controlled by players who don't realize the incoming is from friendlies.
Has anyone done a computer multi-shooter with possible targets unclear
as to side, especially when first seen, even if at fairly close range? I know
in my own case, it isn't necessary. I regularly kill innocents in the
Police Squad type games. ;->=
The_Beast
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 8/30/05, B Lin
> <lin@rxkinetix.com> wrote:
Of course, the what is it question is secondary to the friendly/hostile
question.
It is largely irrelevant whether the tank on the hill is a T-55,
T-62,or
T-72. It just doesn't matter, as long as it is clear it isn't an M-1 and
so it goes "Boom" in a dramatic fashion shortly after that call is made. Does
even a cav scout really need to know the nuances between a BTR-60P and a
BTR-80? As long as he reports "3 BTRs on the ridge, 25 dismounts, 3 AT
missle systems dug into fighting positions" he's done his job.
c) Using the double-blind system, have units fall in and out of contact
> - units that are out of contact disappear from the board to be
Good luck. That requires a lot of work--especially given
modern/near-future
RSTA technology and countermeasures against those technologies. It is a matter
of personal opinion as to where this will go in the future. Personally, I am
of the opinion that miniature wargaming as it exists is far more
representative of the RSTA and C4I capabilities of a future force than would
be the intensely complicated series of systems you seem to suggest.
Target identification gets even more complicated when your allies and your
enemy are using similar hardware. During some
Arab-Israeli conflicts, both the Arabs and the Israelis were
flying Mirages. Also, during the liberation of Kuwait, the US found themselves
allied with an Arab coalition using Russian
hardware. Keeping the US out west doing their left-hook while
the Arabs moved up the coast in the east helped mitigate this problem, but it
is something to consider when you design a scenario.
--Greg
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
Target identification gets even more complicated when your allies and your
enemy are using similar hardware.
It is not even a new problem. Durring WWII the Japanese had licenced
the DC2 and DC3. They used the DC3 in some numbers as a transport and
bombers which did cause some recognition problems.
My favorite is the Finish who were flying aircraft from seven different
nations.
It was possible to have a Finish bomber mission with British and German
bombers escorted by English, American and German fighters.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
On 8/30/05, B Lin
wrote:
> There is actually a range of issues in identification:
Before WWII both the US and British airforce use a round Red circle
in their aircraft insignia. The Japanese used the red circle in all of
their aircraft insignias. In early 1942 the US Army and Navy dropped
the Red circle and the British Air force modified their insignia for the
Pacific theater. When you only have a fraction of a second to make a
decision the fewer distractions the better.