New here! and want game (of MBT)

[Grumbler]

Page 77 and 78, I think, of the SPIII manual. There is also a side note in SP II about attack helios not getting the spotting bonus of other scout vehicles. My information came from an on-line chat by Brors and Grisby done back in '96 or '97. I didn't participate, being somewhere in the world where light bulbs were considered 'majic' and an Internet connect was beyond imagination of the locals. My cousin saved the whole thing on a floppy, only he has been dead several years now and I can't find my Ojia board.
Besides, if the scouts DON'T get a bonus, that is a serious logic flaw in the program. A 'bug' if you will. AFAIK the Cammo group guys are coders, not systems guys. So they wouldn't see it as a bug.
The US military has this thing called Military Occupation Speciality (hereafter MOS) . A MOS is what the soldier is trained in. After training, they have a 'skill'. They then spend most of the rest of their time in the military practicing that skill.
SP recognises this process thru the use of a global variable called 'experience'. There are also variables that apply directly to the MOS as leadership ratings. That is what those number next to the Arty, Infantry and Armor listings on the Unit Command screen do. They reflect the quanity and quality of traning in that units MOS. There is no listing for scouting, so the only way to have a scouts inproved ability at scouting to show up in the game is thru a coded factor in the al-gore-rythem used by the searching module. Or at least that is how Grisby explained it, to the best of my secondhand memory.
Please note here that SP2 and SP3 are the same game, adjusted for scale and platform. The Logic behind the two games is the same. The basic design structure is the same. Think of it as replacing a wooden trestle bridge with a steel one.
No, if the cammo group has taken out the bonus given to scouts in spotting, they have destroyed the structure of the game. It ruins the model. Scouts not having a better ability to scout (search, spotting in SP terms refers only to calling airstrikes or arty) would be the same as saying anyone could use a mortar or a ATGM. While true in theory, there is a reason why mortar crews and ATGM crews practice and train. Trian and practice. Scouting is the same way. Anybody can drop a mortar shell down a tube. It takes training to get that shell on target, and practice to get that shell on target a quickly, and keep the next shell on target. Same for scouting. Any body with eyes can look and see if the enemy is there. It takes training and practice to see if the enemy was there or if they have used any of the hundreds of techniques to hide their presence.

Because it is such a critical part of the game, I ran a test on this back when MBT first came out, to see if there had been any changes made. There hadn't been. I will re-do that test, but not anytime soon. I cleared out my turn que last night and I now have 8 more games awaiting my attention. After I get them done and spend a ouple of hours cracking the books, I'll take a look at the model that claims there is no scout bonus. Modeling is an art, NOT a science.
I think there are 3 possibilities;
1. The wrong questions was asked. The correct question would be 'What factors affect searching formula? It could very well be that the scout units numbers are a baseline and non-scouts pay a hard-wired penality, in which case there is no direct scout bonus, but an indirect one. That would pretty much defeat any attempt to find it, since it isn't there in a physical sense, but exists as a practical value.
2. One of the big downsides of modular code is the over use of 'global' variables. This is an old arguement among computer professionals that will never be settled. When I left the profession several decades ago, the 'modular' was accendent. It requires absolutly first rate documentation to not create 'bugs' (ie; system design flaws) with modular code. This is compounded by the fact of human nature that makes those least likely to document most likely to overuse global variables.
3. I could be wrong.
I have listed them in their order of probablity.

I will do everyone a favor and not discuss this anymore.