Fog Of War -- Diffused, On F10 View

[Wrecking Crew]

Hi,

This is an idea for Fog Of War when viewing with the F10 Map. Rather than show the units on the map, display a diffused circle over the units with a radius that goes just beyond the units. The more units the darker gradient, and the wider spaced units cause the circle to be bigger. If two groups of units were far apart then two diffused circles would show.

 

This would make it a little bit tougher to find or spot a particular unit, such as an air defense unit in a group. I think of it as "Fog Of War -- Diffused".

 

WC

[Eddie]

Interesting idea, but personally I think the whole FOW system needs reworking from the ground up, the current implementation is both worse than real world ISTAR/Recce asset can provide, and unrealistically beyond what they can provide both at the same time.

 

We need something that report positions of groups (platoon/battalion/regiment) using the appropriate NATO/WARPAC map symbology, rather than show each individual unit. And having the accuracy and timeline of reported positions vary based on the asset supplying the intel.

 

Also, once a units position is reported it should remain on the map permanently, even if there is no longer an asset detecting it. In such cases an age of info figure should be shown to indicate how old that intel is.

 

And the big thing that needs changing is that only the appropriate ISTAR/recce assets and ground unit with LOS should be reporting enemy forces in (near) real time. Fighters, for example, should never be reporting the position of enemy ground forces. and something where non recce assets don't feed intel into the system until after they've landed back at home plate would be nice as well.

 

Such a system would actually give a purpose to recce aircraft/missions and ISTAR assets such as AWACS, JSTARs, and ELINT platforms.

[Exorcet]

Such a system would actually give a purpose to recce aircraft/missions and ISTAR assets such as AWACS, JSTARs, and ELINT platforms.

Yes, FoW is a stand-in for recon, command, and intelligence. So either we add those or use an approximation like FoW. I'm for the former idea, but of course if it was so easy ED would have probably added it already.

 

I would prefer step by step improvement for command units rather than tweaking FoW, but the latter is a fairly good compromise.

[NeilWillis]

I'd have thought any target that was locked up in any modern western fighter would be available via data link to higher formation as soon as it was acquired, and therefore become part of the intel picture?

 

I also think it might be good if the map locations were made inaccurate by ever increasing margins to simulate movement since acquisition. That way, you know a unit was reported - and that can be a single vehicle, or more, depending on what exactly the observer was able to see - and as soon as the report is made, the report will slowly start to become less reliable as the icon wanders.

 

The effect would be that you knew something was out there, and since it was seen, it will most likely have redeployed, meaning you'll have to hunt them down anyway.

 

In my days in the UK military, anyone from the lowliest private up could report intel up the chain of command. It would, after all, be some poor grunt on the FEBA that would report the commencement of hostilities, because he's the guy in the wrong place at the wrong time (as far as he was concerned anyway).

 

So no I disagree, not just recce units. It should be sufficient to have a target locked on anyones TGP, or within LOS of any ground unit. Then gradually, the map icon would stray from it's actual location, giving the necessary degradation of intel as the situation changes.

[Eddie]

I'd have thought any target that was locked up in any modern western fighter would be available via data link to higher formation as soon as it was acquired, and therefore become part of the intel picture?

 

Nope, it's not even close to that simple. If you're running a Link-16 based net then there is a significant distribution of information, "locking" something is largely irrelevant however. And of course as DCS has many aircraft that don't have that standard of DL (in fact none of them currently do as modelled at present), it's not going to happen that way.

 

I also think it might be good if the map locations were made inaccurate by ever increasing margins to simulate movement since acquisition. That way, you know a unit was reported - and that can be a single vehicle, or more, depending on what exactly the observer was able to see - and as soon as the report is made, the report will slowly start to become less reliable as the icon wanders.

 

The effect would be that you knew something was out there, and since it was seen, it will most likely have redeployed, meaning you'll have to hunt them down anyway.

 

In my days in the UK military, anyone from the lowliest private up could report intel up the chain of command. It would, after all, be some poor grunt on the FEBA that would report the commencement of hostilities, because he's the guy in the wrong place at the wrong time (as far as he was concerned anyway).

 

So no I disagree, not just recce units. It should be sufficient to have a target locked on anyones TGP, or within LOS of any ground unit. Then gradually, the map icon would stray from it's actual location, giving the necessary degradation of intel as the situation changes.

 

Of course any ground forces can provide intel reports, but air assets generally don't/won't, at least not until they reach the debrief phase of the mission. Unless they are flying specific recce tasks for various tactical reasons(and even then it may not be until after RTB when pods etc. are downloaded and the data analysed). Only specific ISTAR assets can provide (near) real time intel on enemy forces, either through active means (AWACS/JSTARS) or passive means (ELINT/photo recce).

 

As far as an "icon" moving away from it's reported location, that doesn't make any sense. If you write down a grid ref, do the numbers magically chance over time? Mine sure don't. What does happen however is that the forces at that position may move, and if nobody is watching to provide an updated position then it doesn't get updated as they do so.

 

As for units being tracked/within LOS of any player's TGP or other sensor's FOV, I don't think that's the way to go. Position reporting for human players should be accomplished manually, preferably by actually marking the map and/or datalink info being visible to CA players etc. Any automatic system like that which we have now just leads to being able to magically detect units that haven't actually been seen by anyone just by flying close enough.

 

A good FOW/detection system is a big task, but if done right can a very significant impact to the simulation. Plenty of other games have done a very good job of implementing a FOW system that worked well for them. The way it has been done in the ArmA series for example, which uses some of the elements I've mentioned, while not perfect is still a good example and nicely blends spotting by AI with manual map marking by players.

[Slazi]

 

As for units being tracked/within LOS of any player's TGP or other sensor's FOV, I don't think that's the way to go. Position reporting for human players should be accomplished manually, preferably by actually marking the map and/or datalink info being visible to CA players etc. Any automatic system like that which we have now just leads to being able to magically detect units that haven't actually been seen by anyone just by flying close enough.

 

I agree that listing everything in view is silly.

 

It should be automatic for ai multicrew a/c. Perhaps the player should get some kind of in flight interface, but having to move to the F10 map in flight is too much to ask.

 

AI recon should be the main source of intel; ground units should keep people updated.