Fog of war

[hawk66]

I do not know if this was already discussed:

I'd like to see the 'Fog of war' enhanced in that way that (enemy) units are not completely known when you detect them for the first time. What I mean is that you only see the basic type (tank, infantry and so on ) but not the specific type (depending of the distance and visibility, of course).

Later, when you have more intelligence about the unit the complete info would be available.

What do you think?

[RightDeve]

Hi

I'm afraid (and pretty sure) that's not modeled in the game.
For that thing to be implemented, I'm sure there will be lots of tearing down of the game's code, as you know, units which are not well-identified will need another Icon to depict it on the battlefield, say.

Although the feature is good, I don't think it has a deep impact on the flow of the gameplay. For one game to have that feature I would recommend the Combat Mission series.
I've played CM (and set the FoW setting to extreme) and IMHO, the effect to the battlefield is not so big. Moreover, it's often (in my experience) that the "limited-information" shown when we first sighted the enemy is 97% the same with the actual info when we have engaged that unit.

Also, keep in mind that the game's (WinSP) scope is 50 meter per hex and 2-3 minutes per turn, and usually it's being played at battalion level to regimental level. So, such "enhanced FoW" will usually of no use when compared to the "gigantic scope" of the game.

Perhaps Don and Andy have better explanation of the feature.

Just my $ 0.02

[EJ]

RightDeve,
You said it right. Don and Andy will pretty much say the same. They ARE NOT GOING TO REWRITE the code per one person's wishes....The only other thing you can do is increase or decrease the visibility.

[Wdll]

I don't see a reason to SCREAM LIKE THAT TO HIM/HER just because he asked our opinion on a matter.

I like the idea of this fow, but in the long run I don't think it would make any meaningful difference in the game. Don't forget that you don't always automaticaly see the enemy unit firing at you. Also, if you are so inclined (I think it is lame, but some might not mind), I believe you can rename your units in a battle so when the enemy sees M-60 firing it could say Pussy-Cat firing. Mind you, I might be wrong on this lol.

[hawk66]

I know that Don and Andy will not rewrite the code due to the wish of one person.

I agree that the impact of such a feature would not be a dramatic change to the gameplay; in a real time sim like combat mission shock force this is a different story.

Personally, I would like to have this feature but you cannot have all things in your life ;).

[RightDeve]

Also, if you are so inclined (I think it is lame, but some might not mind), I believe you can rename your units in a battle so when the enemy sees M-60 firing it could say Pussy-Cat firing. Mind you, I might be wrong on this lol.

LOL :laugh::laugh:
Smart ***!
Once I renamed my "Tiger" unit (in SPWW2) to "PzKw IIa" and my "SdKfz 251/10" to "Tiger".
And that's my favorite hobby to rename units especially in PBeM.

[Imp]

Also, if you are so inclined (I think it is lame, but some might not mind), I believe you can rename your units in a battle so when the enemy sees M-60 firing it could say Pussy-Cat firing. Mind you, I might be wrong on this lol.

LOL :laugh::laugh:
Smart ***!
Once I renamed my "Tiger" unit (in SPWW2) to "PzKw IIa" and my "SdKfz 251/10" to "Tiger".
And that's my favorite hobby to rename units especially in PBeM.

It would make very little diffrence exept to slow the game down as the player now looks at your unit info screen each time. Even with several units in a hex use of P & N target would let him chooose the next target, lame idea.

As to the fog of war it models very well considering the game time you dont instantly find units & can often pull off hit & runs with little return fire.

[Suhiir]

The scale of the game, 50m hexes, 2-3 minute turns make that sort of "Fog of War" (FoW) rather "unrealistic".

Let me try to explain why I think this.

For FoW to exist there must be a posibility if not liklihood for misidentification of units.

If one side sees the other sides recon vehicles they may be unable to correctly identify the type of unit they are doing recon for - Armor, Mech, etc. This is FoW.

But at tactical ranges it's pretty easy to identify the type of recon vehicle they're seeing. No FoW.

Any half competent military force WILL spend some time on vehicle recognition before they enter combat with an opponent. And while it is certainly possible for someone to misidentify a vehicle it's unlikly 3, 4, 10 people will.

That make any sense?

[RightDeve]

It would make very little diffrence exept to slow the game down as the player now looks at your unit info screen each time. Even with several units in a hex use of P & N target would let him chooose the next target, lame idea.

It depends much on how we use that "trick".
Surely enough, that won't be of big difference if we rename our units excessively. That trick will be very useful to "demoralize" the enemy down if we know how to do that.

For example, in a shoot-and-scoot mission for a Nashorn. We put the AFV on ambush position and rename it to, say, Tiger II. Both vehicles have the same main gun. Once the enemy is in range, start firing and go the fallback position. Most of the time the "pinned" enemy won't be able to spot your Nashorn, especially if it's only one shot.

That trick will make the enemy wonder if we have the Tiger II. And, considering how deadly Tiger II is, he will make a second thinking.

Maybe tis not so much of a FoW, but it works for me sometime.

PS: Don't try this against the AI, he's surely smarter than you think. :D

[Wdll]

I keep thinking about this request. While this FoW in the above way, makes sense say in air battles or sea, even for infantry battles, it would be problematic for vehicles. You are fighting USA, you see a tank, what chances are it will be something other than Abrams? But even with other countries that have a greater diversity, if are at war against them, and you are able to see the enemy vehicle, shouldn't be relatively easy to figure out if it is model A or B? I think this type of FoW fits more a real time strategy game, than say this or perhaps even reality.
Just IMO of course.

[Imp]

its not going to happen anyway but as said previosly considering turn time works very well in my view, the best I have come across in this type of game by a long way.


For example, in a shoot-and-scoot mission for a Nashorn. We put the AFV on ambush position and rename it to, say, Tiger II. Both vehicles have the same main gun. Once the enemy is in range, start firing and go the fallback position. Most of the time the "pinned" enemy won't be able to spot your Nashorn, especially if it's only one shot.



May be wrong here as dont really watch that much but think waste of time.
If you cant see the firer the best info you will get on incoming is the weapon type it wont mention its name at all. If it becomes visible over the course of the game turn, takes you time to find it if its not running around units will opfire at normally.
So if under threat who needs to identify its firing at me fire back & its all out of your control.
Think how the game tends to work once its spotted the unit being fired on is most likely to fire. If it continues to fire or move so a bit more time goes by its a positive ID other units have seen or been passed info & the rest open up, sounds like fog of war to me. You might mistake one model of tank for another but come on your example if he cant tell the diffrence he sure as hell has no chance of hitting it.
Not being able to tell if a MkIII has a 37 or 50 gun at range is a fair point but you would still engage if had a chance of taking it out so it would probably be close enough to tell. So even if it was implemented would make little diffrence as the situation where it matters hardly occurs.
Try playing yourself naming all tanks on one side tank & see if it makes any real diffrence.

[c_of_red]

I will sometimes rename my FO units. Only when they are conversions of a standard vehicle. HMMWV's are a good example. Change the FO Hummer to say 1097 HMMWV or what ever and it seems to help. I say seems because if it says FO, the normal opponent kills it right off. As do the non-normal ones. I do it myself. Since the Icons are the same there is no obvious reason for my opponent to right click on that particular Hummer. When he runs the cursor over the icon, it will say the same thing as the other icons of that type. Got to keep them guessing.
I you want to be real sneaky, name a leg FO as a scout. 2 Men, zero sized units that are armed the same. Unless you opponent looks at the class line or the arty rating, he won't notice.
Is that foggy?
My favorite request is having the vis range change as the sun goes up or down. In many parts of the world, the visibility 30 minutes before sunrise is way different then 30 minutes after.

[Imp]

I would say they are acceptable if both players agree, hopefully your FO vehicle is far enough away the extra com gear is not obvious. With WW2 stuff though have to be a bit careful those ring ariels would make it pretty obvious its a command vehicle of some type quite far out. Of course if it spent say a 1/3rd of a turn 1 minute approx in view a positive ID would be on the cards or issuing of army reg specs. If 1 turn represented a few seconds the idea would have merrit.

[c_of_red]

No point if the other player knows. Deception is the essence of warfare.
I'm playing an opponent, not his equipment. If I can make him think I'm attacking on the top of the map when I'm actually attacking on the bottom, das is goot.
In SP both sides start off equal, although not the same. To win you have to create an advantage or have much better kit or troops. Tricking an opponent into exposing a flank or moving units out of position is how you create an advantage. Opponents, being opponents will sometimes trick you by letting you think they are being tricked. That is what makes the game enjoyable.

[c_of_red]

Somthing I never understood was why the Soviets didn't put extra antenna on ALL of their vehicles. SOP for NATO forces was to shoot the vehicles with extra antennas first to kill the leaders. If I had been a Soviet platoon commander, I would have made sure the other tanks in my plt. had a full set of antennas, if I had to buy and install them myself. Pretty cheap life insurance.

[pjbandit2003]

That is how I use the rename. I will take a M1A1 and rename to M1 or Abrams. Sure it may not fool most people but it doesnt give away the actual armor or armament at a quick glance (shoot and scoot). But most armor commanders and also all recon units can tell at a glance that that was an Abrams and not a Sherman, or even a Leopard. Maybe they can not tell that it was a M1A2 or have the mobility upgrades and such. I think that the tactic explained with the Nashorn is kinda cheap. But who knows what unit fired that 88mm round if you dont see the vehicle so maybe rename it an 88mm gun just before you fire and then move and rename the unit back. But completely renaming a unit to give false information is using the GAME mechanics for something it is not intended for. After all it is just a game use it to add to the game not cheapen it. What was really funny was the fact that I was Rightdeve's opponent when I saw the PzII icon and the name was Tiger. (he also renamed his Tiger to a PzII) Kinda obvious it wasnt.

[RightDeve]

I am kinda disagree with the opinion that the shooting guy (if not spotted) isn't going to pop his name up on the replay screen.
Try it yourself guys. You'll see the NAME of the VEHICLE shooting.
ONE obvious thing too: if you Z fire your opponent, even when you're not yet spotted, the replay screen will give the name of that "Z" firing unit.

Maybe you should read the GG on "Game Play Notes" just above the chapter "Various Military Quotations". It's the developer himself to "teach" us that trick. And I'm sure, the developers are waay better than us in terms of game understanding.

@c_of_red : well put man, ALL WAR IS DECEPTION. Why we should leave our opponent deceive us if we can deceive him.

@pjbandit : LOL. That's our previous prematurely-ended game. I'm not expecting much from that. But have you ever wondered how many Tiger I i really have in our current battle? Regarding how many KV-1s and T-34s are smouldering on the battlefield??

In all, it's still better for me to rename units rather than leaving them just that. AT LEAST, we try to deceive the enemy. If it won't work, we have tried then.

[gila]

In all, it's still better for me to rename units rather than leaving them just that. AT LEAST, we try to deceive the enemy. If it won't work, we have tried then.

Why not just play the game as it's intended to be?
If you have to play tricks, don't that seem gamey to your opponent.
Wonder if it happened to you how you would feel?
And since you are calling others "noobs" tells alot about you.
You are superiour to others because you cheat.
What ticks me off is you telling others how to play unfair.

I'd rather play a fair game and not play underhanded childish tricks.
Trix are for kids we like a fair game here.
Just my humble opinion

[RightDeve]

GILA:

It seems you're really pissed off though my posts in no-way intended to flame someone. I have to clear things here:

1. YOU SAY I'M CALLING OTHERS "NOOB". FINE, YOU'LL HAVE TO CHECK THE THICK LINE SEPARATING MY POSTS AND MY SIGNATURE. THAT IS A SIGNATURE. AND THAT THING IS INTENDED TO BE JUST A SIGNATURE. I don't know why you can call me "Noob-you sayer". But if that signature really pissed you off, I will surely remove that.

2. I'M SUPERIOR BECAUSE I'M CHEATING: IN WHAT TERMS DID I CHEAT? IF IT'S THE "UNIT RENAMING" THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK IT AS CHEATING. I FOLLOW THAT TRICK DIRECTLY FROM THE GAME GUIDE. SO IF YOU WANT TO COMPLAIN, WHY DON'T YOU JUST DIRECTLY SAY THAT TO THE GAME GUIDE MAKER? BESIDES, MY OPPONENTS FOR PBEM NEVER ACCUSED ME OF CHEATING THROUGH THAT TRICK, now why would you?
IF THAT'S GAMEY, WELL, IT'S A GAME, NO MORE SAYING. I personally don't THINK it as gamey. For me, it do some kinda Fog of War. AND THAT'S MY OPINION. MOREOVER, IN THE WHOLE COURSE OF MY ENTIRE PBEM GAME I NEVER EVER CHEATED A SINGLE PERSON.

3. I'M TELLING OTHERS TO PLAY UNFAIR: REMEMBER, THIS PLACE IS FOR OTHER'S OPINION. RECALLED THE FOURTH POST IN THIS THREAD BY WDLL, "NO SCREAMING FOR OTHER'S OPINION". And again, I personally don't think it as unfair. AND THAT'S MY OPINION.

4. "JUST MY HUMBLE OPINION". THAT TELLS ALOT ABOUT YOU! IF THIS IS HUMBLE OPINION, WHAT ABOUT YOUR "UN-HUMBLE" OPINIONS?

5. "TRICKS ARE FOR KIDS". SURE, I PERSONALLY THINK I'M NOT OLD ENOUGH TO BE CALLED A "MAN". I'M 17 YEARS OLD AND AM ENJOYING PLAYING TRICKS (As far as it's not cheating).


PS: Honestly, I want to send this message via PM to you as I INITIALLY think it's not appropriate to be sent in such a public.
BUT, regarding your PUBLIC-FLAMING post against me, it is obviously fair, 1 - 1, for me.
AND REMEMBER, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO FLAMED ME FIRST, ACCUSING ME OF CHEATING, IS THAT AN HONORABLE WAY OF WRITING POST? SURELY NOT!


AND I HOPE THIS MESSAGE REACH YOU SOON BEFORE IT BE DELETED BY SOMEONE CALLED MODERATOR.

Oyeah, one last thing, THIS IS MY FIRST TIME IN THIS FORUM BEING OFFENDED AND FLAMED SO OBVIOUSLY. I THINK YOU SHOULD GO OFF THIS SITE IF YOU DON'T MIND
YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH PISSED I AM RIGHT NOW!


Cheers, and best regard to our dearly friend GILA.

[Suhiir]

>Tosses a bucket of cold water on this thread hoping it will cool down and get back on track<

[Imp]

I am kinda disagree with the opinion that the shooting guy (if not spotted) isn't going to pop his name up on the replay screen.
Try it yourself guys. You'll see the NAME of the VEHICLE shooting.
ONE obvious thing too: if you Z fire your opponent, even when you're not yet spotted, the replay screen will give the name of that "Z" firing unit.


Guess that shows how much attention I pay to the message windows then. Tis more fun watching the on screen action as my toy soldiers go about there buisness. Might keep an eye out for penetration effects if think its doubtful at that range but thats more when I am firing.

C of Red pretty much summed it up as its a game so trys to balance starting forces bluff & counter bluff to gain area superiority play a big part, getting it wrong can have dire consequences.
Its this more than anything that is the diffrence between playing the AI & PBEM, a good player varies what he does & if he can get you wondering what hes up to you suddenly find yourself watching a replay & seeing 90% of your Tank Co become scrap. its one of those moments that changes how you play forever, less haste more recon & dont always do the obvious suddenly becomes your new strategy.

[RightDeve]

@ Suhiir: Thanks for teh cold wtaer. otherwise i would have been saying something more "sharp". maybe someone can kindly deleete that thing. i see no reason for that to be displayed publicly now. i was just too red.

@ Imp : Sure, I pay much attention to the message windows. It is another level of tactic in the game.
Anyway, thanks for the tips. It's my strategy to always change tactic in PBeM, especially if tis wide possible. But for unit renaming, well, stop talkin' about that.

Cheers, RightDeve

[RightDeve]

Might be better if someone can delete both the post (GILA and I).
I see no use of his accusation on "cheating" in this thread. It's like a thunder amidst tranquility. Maybe he should put the words more carfully

[Lt. Ketch]

its one of those moments that changes how you play forever, less haste more recon & dont always do the obvious suddenly becomes your new strategy.

This is very, very true. A cautious commander is a living commander. There are of course exptions, but for the most part, fortune favors the brave, but longevity favors the wary.

[Imp]

Yes gauging when to throw caution to the wind is also an integral part, shift your attack & throw off guard or capitalise (hopefuly) on an unexpected opportunity. All this though is much easier if your recon has done its job. They might not get caught up in the fight much but boy do they keep your loses acceptable. Thinking about it if include recon in force to a large portion of my force is doing this most of the time only stopping when its time to light the fuse.
A decisive strike is then possible which is both safer & far more satisfying if you pull it off.

[gila]

I THINK YOU SHOULD GO OFF THIS SITE IF YOU DON'T MIND
YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH PISSED I AM RIGHT NOW!


[/QUOTE]

I stand by my post 100 per cent and your not one to be calling the shots are you?
Stop PMing me also they are deleted and not read, little boy.

[c_of_red]

If the game allows it, I don't consider it cheating. War has no rules, Liberals Lawyers think it does but history keeps proving them wrong.
So if you can invent something within the game system that gives you an advantage, tell me and Ill do it too. At least until the Cammo guys get wind of it and code it out. What I miss the most was the Rnging MG trick. Back in the day, you could use the co-ax MG as a range finder. Shoot the target with the 'w' key and most of the time the target wouldn't op fire back. Then you could fire the main gun with a consecutive shot bonus. It was a big help when playing the Soviets as well as being historically accurate. IIRC, it was coded out about the time Cammo and Matrix split up. The otherthing I liked was the 'bump and run'. If you could get an enemy vehile to retreat, you could run along side it ( same hex) and use it for cover to get a recon vehicle behind enemy lines. As long as the retreating ubnit was bigger then your scout, if your opponent shot at you, he would hit the bigger vehicle.Friendly fire isn't. But it is real fun to watch your opponent kill his tank trying to hit your jeep.

Going outside the system by replaying turns, changing your units to have 100+ experience, using two machines, hacking the password, using an active de-bugging tool, etc. are all cheating.
At least that is my opinion.

Here is a freeby.
When setting up, it is possible to get infantry units set up ACROSS the setup line. You place your zero unit ( platoon leader) next to the LOD (line of departure or start line) and hit the 'a' ( all) key. The program will deploy that platoons units within 5 hexes of the platoon leader. It ignores the LOD, so some of the units will wind up across the LOD. What is neet is that you can keep doing it until you get a placement you like or the zero (platoon leader) is placed on the other side of the LOD.
Can't do it with vehicles for some reason, and it isn't much of an advantage, since the most you will get is a 4 or 5 hex start on your opponent, but every bit helps. It is almost like getting an extra movement turn for some of your slower units.

[Wdll]

Very lame. :down:

[Imp]

Here is a freeby.
When setting up, it is possible to get infantry units set up ACROSS the setup line. You place your zero unit ( platoon leader) next to the LOD (line of departure or start line) and hit the 'a' ( all) key. The program will deploy that platoons units within 5 hexes of the platoon leader. It ignores the LOD, so some of the units will wind up across the LOD. What is neet is that you can keep doing it until you get a placement you like or the zero (platoon leader) is placed on the other side of the LOD.
Can't do it with vehicles for some reason, and it isn't much of an advantage, since the most you will get is a 4 or 5 hex start on your opponent, but every bit helps. It is almost like getting an extra movement turn for some of your slower units.

Good grief
Set up is the longest game turn at least for me, survey the map look at what the enemy might do form a plan & deploy accordingly. Mucking about to gain an advantage like that would be incredibly boring. Rather than trying to exploit the game which seems the way this thread is going now why not exploit the unit strengths & weaknesses of both sides. A victory is nice but its a hollow one if you did not achieve it on your own merit, the feel good factor of the game is doing something right & out foxing your opponent. What makes you feel good is things like your platoon taking on a Company from Ambush & getting 3:1 kill ratio despite the odds. Achieving questionable advantages through time consuming ploys just take away from the playability of the game though I must admit I do micro manage the range on my AA assets. Its time consuming so distracts from the game but with the low hit chances can sucker him in so you get multiple shots with climbing accuracy<!-- / message -->

[c_of_red]

Imp, if it was a really good trick, why would I go pubic with it?
No, about the only time I use it is when there is snow on the ground and I'm playing with a lot of infantry.
I just used that as an example. Just because player A knows something Player B doesn't, does not make Player A a cheater. It just means Player A has a deeper, fuller tool box.

[Imp]

Was not having a go just expressing a view, its not a cheat as such more an exploit & one I could not be bothered with. The other examples you gave though are as you said blatant cheating & really whats the point. You are not going to get that feel good factor using them or improve your game, getting beat is what does that as hopefully you have some idea what they did & try it yourself adding another card to your armoury.

[Suhiir]

I don't know about the rest of you but I learn a LOT more about "how to win" by being beat then I do by winning.

As to having my units (particularly FO's) ID'd by an opponent because of their unit name...I tend to favor infantry and light helo's as FOs rather then vehicles.
Infantry FOs are pretty hard to spot since they're size 0, 2-man units - if you set their op fire range to 2-3 hexes so they rarely fire. And helo's can "pop up" to spot and adjust fire...and IF you oppositions AA has been reduced or you stay back far enough even stay up to observe the fire (tho most often its far safer to have them dorp back outta sight after the fire is plotted so you lose the observation but keep them alive).

Basically I don't worry much about having my units ID'd by the opposition...I make it a point to not park them in a line of fire in the first place.

[Cross]

I do not know if this was already discussed:

I'd like to see the 'Fog of war' enhanced in that way that (enemy) units are not completely known when you detect them for the first time. What I mean is that you only see the basic type (tank, infantry and so on ) but not the specific type (depending of the distance and visibility, of course).

Later, when you have more intelligence about the unit the complete info would be available.

What do you think?

Currently you can right click on an enemy unit to get 'unit info.'

I wonder if there may be a way to code a realism 'Preferences' button to turn on/off access to the 'unit info' screen? Basically disabling the current right click on enemy units.

First, this will still allow you to briefly identify some units as they are named when firing. But will definately create an 'enhanced' FoW environment. And the 'purists' can still manually rename units if that's agreed upon.

Secondly, you will still be able to roughly identify units by their icons, which are largely generic. All you will know is that they are infantry, or it's probably a panzer IV but you may not know which type.

Thirdly, you will no longer be able to see how many crew are left in damaged enemy tanks.



cheers,
Cross

[c_of_red]

I used to play that way, but the new arty rules in the latest update have forced me to change the way I use FO's. In the past I stuck one next to my A0 and used that all the time, not being worried to much about having an LOS.
Getting a .1 adjustment only when there is a LOS means I have to put the FO's up front with the grunts. To get more then 1 magic dime ( golden spot, whatever u call it) I have to buy several Fo's. So I find more of them are dying.If I can't get FO's with 40vis, then if I can see them, they have a chance of seing me. They new rules ARE more realistic in most respects, if you don't have GPS. With GPS and JDAM's, there should be a 2 turn delay ( it takes about 4 to 6 minutes for the bomb to fall from 40 to 60 thousand feet) and the hit % should always be 99% with that 1% being the FO putting in the wrong co-ordinates. No record of a JADAM ever going anywhere other then where it was told to go.
For arty to be useful, you HAVE to have an FO with a LOS to the target. Unless you are depending on your opponent to co-operate by sitting there for a few turns while you get your tubes on target.
If that works for you, I need to play some of your opponents, mine don't seem to co-operate all that much. One itsy bitsy tiny winy little ICM AP round and they are off like Olympic sprinters.

The game will tell you if that tube is being directe at a spotted target. If it is and the target survives, which normal, since arty mostly supresses not destroys, you can use the look around button, or just right click around to see what hexes have a LOS to you. The FO is in one of those hexes. Logic can eliminate some of those hexes, mortars and area fire on the rest will push up the suppression on the FO until it can be spotted. It isn't quite that easy but it is doable.

[Suhiir]

I tend to agree.
The old way FOs worked made them a bit too effective.
The new way makes them a bit "less then useful".

With luck next patch (or in some future patch) they'll modify things to somewere between the old and new and strike a good balance.

[Cross]

Currently you can right click on an enemy unit to get 'unit info.'

I wonder if there may be a way to code a realism 'Preferences' button to turn on/off access to the 'unit info' screen? Basically disabling the current right click on enemy units.

First, this will still allow you to briefly identify some units as they are named when firing. But will definately create an 'enhanced' FoW environment. And the 'purists' can still manually rename units if that's agreed upon.

Secondly, you will still be able to roughly identify units by their icons, which are largely generic. All you will know is that they are infantry, or it's probably a panzer IV but you may not know which type.

Thirdly, you will no longer be able to see how many crew are left in damaged enemy tanks.


One thing I failed to mention, is that you would still be able to identify an enemy unit if you have LOS to it during your move turn. As you can 'target' that unit to see it's name. Which may be a realistic feature anyway.

However, this still enhances FoW because you will not be able to ID units that you can see on the map that you have no LOS to during your turn (including units spotted by fixed wing aircraft), and you still won't be able to see 'unit info' with weapon and crew details on the unit.



cheers,
Cross

[whdonnelly]

I have no problem with right clicking on a unit and getting info. If you can see it, you have a pretty good idea whether it is a BMP or tank, scouts or FIST teams. Maybe you don't know militia from regular, but that is a small price to pay for the rest of the realism vs game compromise.

[Imp]

Must admit I like being able to access the enemy info screen simply because it saves you looking up enyclopedia all the time. If you stick to the same sides suppose not a problem but there are a lot of units & any army worth its salt would have an idea of the enemies capabilities.

Going back to the original post as bothered to look at my message tickers.
Simple solution stick a post it over the bottom one & you only know the weapon that fired. I definetly dont watch it much as do go what the hell was that on a replay sometimes. Slightly diffrent mines hate the things mainly because at least on my system they are a tad noisy

[Cross]

Must admit I like being able to access the enemy info screen simply because it saves you looking up enyclopedia all the time. If you stick to the same sides suppose not a problem but there are a lot of units & any army worth its salt would have an idea of the enemies capabilities.



Hi Imp,

I agree that you should "have an idea of the enemies capabilities" but currently we have EVERY detail of the enemies capabilities. And that is what I'm trying to address. :)

One of the most unrealistic 'cheats' this allows, is that our armour instantly knows if an enemy squad is carrying any AT weapons, and exactly which weapons those are!!!

The main info you gain from right clicking is:

Detail of weapon and ammo types
Number of men
Range of weapons (after hitting 'I' for additional info)

Realistically, if your forces are are facing an infantry squad, you would not know what weapons that squad was carrying until they fired the weapon.

With the 'unit info' disabled you will still discover what weapons the squad has, but only when they fire.

In real life, the number of men in a squad you are facing is always obscured in battle. We have instant access to the exact number left in any spotted squad. Disabled unit info will keep us from exact details but we'll still realistically have an idea from the icons.

As for having to use the encyclopedia, I agree that could be a pain. But please remember I am suggesting an optional realism button, not a complete game change. This button would be an advanced feature (not for beginners) that you would use when you are fighting reasonably familiar forces.


cheers,
Cross

[Imp]

I must admit justified points, I always thought including men on first screen a bit strange as you tend to notice it. Useful for gun crews & if you were going to be gamey could use to know teams have limited shots.
Its main use for me is looking up vehicle & to a lesser extent gun capabilities you can after all get a good idea of the shape infantry is in from the icon.

As you say maybe an optional thing but has its drawbacks example with infantry.

When I buy my force if dont know other sides capabilities I select them as allies & have a quick look at possible capabilities then buy my force..
With infantry thats AT & ranges of weapons mainly plus if they have a diffrent support squad.
In game have no need to look up infantry just assume the worst esp with AT weapons as most players buy the good ones mainly
So vs the AI (regular turns) no need to look as can remember the support squad as he say fired 2 LMGs so has no AT.
In PBEM if a few days pass then I have forgotten which one he was so might look it up if tactical situation calls for it.
Could I suppose write it down but the game is geared to PBEM with a gap between playing to save you having to do this. Unit leaves your LOS but does not instantly disapear like it would to allow you to comeback & "remember"
This could probably be changed so he vanishes & now some players would resort to pen & paper keeping track of where units went.
Just my view but this would detract from the game though human nature means someone will be bothered to do it.
Having said that though cant see it happening but I would be happy if vehicle info gave detail & troops just said infantry but it occurs to me some players would just get silly.
Look at all troop configurations write them down now watch them fire closely & you can tell what squad type it is or narrow it to a couple max.
In reality this is what you do anyway but to a far smaller extent, hes been firing GL at my squad so has one of 2 RPGs we will err on the side of safety & assume the longer ranged varient, at some time in the game we will probably have to risk it & find out.

The other thing is where do you stop if you really want to open the flood gates for the pen & paper brigade & have fog of war.
Dont show enemy suppressed status is it pinned or in good order, did it rally?
Redo tiles & icons so units become very hard to see in woods smoke (TI hum) even when spotted, then remove P&N buttons for targeting & ID tags etc.

Sorry a bit long winded & thinking about it when I stumble into squads armed with them flame rockets do wish I had looked first.

[Cross]

The other thing is where do you stop if you really want to open the flood gates for the pen & paper brigade & have fog of war.
Dont show enemy suppressed status is it pinned or in good order, did it rally?
Redo tiles & icons so units become very hard to see in woods smoke (TI hum) even when spotted, then remove P&N buttons for targeting & ID tags etc.

Sorry a bit long winded & thinking about it when I stumble into squads armed with them flame rockets do wish I had looked first.

Hi Imp,

Could FoW cause players to resort to pen & paper notes? I think it's possible but unlikely. There's already a 'danger' that you may be playing against a detail oriented (anal) opponent who is writing down every AVF he damages and keeping track of every unit spotted or KO, in an attempt to get complete intel on your force make up, disposition and condition.

As for opening the flood gates to other FoW issues like obscure icons or pinned status, those are separate issues that someone could propose for discussion on their own merit; but they really don't have much to do with a disable unit info button.
The game has become brilliant, because of careful and intelligent incremental improvements over many years.

However, I think their could possibly ;) be something in your concerns :re: but I honestly won't know how this FoW suggestion would play until I'd tested it. I think I'll try it by disciplining myself not to use the unit info screen in my next battle, and I'll see how it plays.

cheers,
Cross

[Imp]

Cross
yes was taking to extremes & more than a bit anal but someone would be.
Agree in pricipal as an option turning info so its blank for infantry makes sense & vehicle guns should not list crews on first screen.
This will have a slight impact on gameplay if it was ever actioned I suppose, as do often look at other side first so know the sort of range they might be dangerous to armour its never realy occured to me.
If its a big game quite often set the range to engage infantry in the op filter I use for tanks & save it so in the instances I want it its already set.
As you say the temptation is there if one squad in the platoon has a longer ranged AT weapon to look.
It does mean I would need to pay more attention to replays as at the moment thats when I use it, see a squad fire something nasty I remember its one of by that terrain feature & look which rather than remembering its specific hex. Sieve like brain like mine might have to watch replay twice if things got a bit exiting.:)

[Marek_Tucan]

Just my .02 CZK...
1) Fog of War - I like it. I would like "FoW" unit names - as for ID, it'snot that easy as many people make it to be. Not all vehicles are so cut and dried as Abrams (and even then, distinguishing M1 from M1A1 from M1A2SEP at 3 km is a bit hard I would say), the same for various BMPs. Enter the domain of T-64-72-80-84-90 family and you're lost. I guess in the heat of battle no crew would stop to count the roadwheels and measure their diameters. Let alone getting info on ammo used and so on.
However I think not everyone would like it, so it is clearly a question for individual OOB mods. Come one, if someone wants to do this, I'm game, rename units and show correct names in encyclopaedia texts. So, say, no more T-55, T-55A, T-55AM1, T-55AM2, T-55AM2B, T-55MV, but just "T-55", "T-55 ERA", "T-55 BDD". Same for infantry - no more "FO", "Scouts", "Mech section", "Militia section", just say "Infantry", "Light Infantry", "RPG Infantry", "Machinegun"... However I won't like say renaming PzII to Tiger or vice versa. Though it is true that for many Allied soldiers every German tank was "Tiger", "Panther" and every SPG "Ferdinand" ;)
As for editing ency texts, I have found out how to make it en masse and posted it in the TOE section some time ago.
One of the "benefits" of FoW is

2) "forbiddning use" - why? Why not just have a gentleman's agreement about say "no right-clicking", "no unit info screen"... I personally do not use right-click at the enemy too often, I like fighting partially blind ;)

[Cross]

Yes, the crew number can be a bit gamey. I have often right clicked on enemy tanks to get an indication of how badly it's damaged. I also want to know if it's the same tank I damaged earlier, and then I can better decide if I want to approach it.

That said, it can be realistic to know if a specific tank is damaged. I've read quite a few accounts of tank battles where hit tanks has visible signs of damage, like trailing smoke.

You may be right about the replay becoming more important. That may even be the wrinkle that torpedoes this idea. If it makes the game frustrating, regardless of realism, then who'd want to use it...

But it may just make the game better, like not knowing where unspotted units are. What you don't know can enhance the game, rather than making it frustrating.

It just has to be tested to see how it plays and 'feels'.

[Marek_Tucan]

That said, it can be realistic to know if a specific tank is damaged. I've read quite a few accounts of tank battles where hit tanks has visible signs of damage, like trailing smoke.

OTOH I daresay I have read a number of accounts where the tank showed no visible signs of damage yet the crew was killed or knocked out. And the basic rule of ground combat is "shoot till it changes shape and stops moving". Just have a look at the famous Cajone Eh. Burned after a freak SPG-82 hit, then subsequently burned some more by crew, then attacked by Paveways and directly hit by a Maverick... Yet from 3-km it would still look to you like one Abrams keeping guard over the road crossing.
EDIT: And to counter "Yeah, from 3 km maybe, but if I get scouts close..." - would you try to close in to few hundred (max) meters to Abrams? And anyway, you would at the very least stop till the scouts make sure the tank is dead.


Same situation, a tank is reported. You take a look through binocs and if you're lucky, you identify the typical egg-shaped turret. Now what is it? T-54? T-55? Type 59? Type 69? With night sights? With modern ammo? With LRF? Damaged by previous airstrike, suppressed by arty, with green crew not seeing you, with experienced crew playing dead, with experienced crew having a brewski time?

[Wdll]

I will keep it simple. I don't like the idea Cross mentioned.
It will just force people to waste time checking the encyclopedia all the time and/or only play against forces they know really well.

[Cross]

I will keep it simple. I don't like the idea Cross mentioned.
It will just force people to waste time checking the encyclopedia all the time and/or only play against forces they know really well.

It won't force anyone to do anything. It would be an optional realism button, that people could choose to use, especially if they are playing against forces they know really well.

Marek,

I absolutely agree that AFVs may never show damage/losses they have sustained. Which is one of the reasons I support - the testing of - a 'disable unit info' button.

I was merely being 'Devil's advocate' showing that there can be times where visible damage is realistic.

cheers,
Cross

[Imp]

This is draging on but shows the way people think diffrently.
I have never used it to check for vehicle damage nor had the thought even occured to me.
Use it to find info on a vehicle gun ATGM I am unsure about or as said to check thats the squad I saw fire in the replay or know is there if a couple of days between turns, which one was he?
For a vehicle I see how fast its going & make a guestimate on how buttoned it is shots left & range for an approach, who says men cant multitask;)
I would think its you who are in the minority & using the exploit rather than most of us.
Its a computer game & hence treat like most games of that type quick play with odd reference to what is a player aid.
A board game or something with a complex rule system then game pace slows down & charts & tables come out is my mentality.
-------------------------------------------------------
Okay I admit it if the films any good I can either watch it or talk to you not both

[Cross]

Hi Imp,

Are you saying that you think most people don't use the unit info screen on enemy units to see the number of men/crew and the type of weapons?

And you seem to be saying that it IS an exploit :)

Both of these claims could support the introduction of a unit info disable button.

I'm with you regarding gamey practices. I always use a set of preferences/agreements prior to PBEM; which helps ward off gamey sharks.

I also keep my game playing on the light side. I rarely consult the encyclopedia; occasionally the unit info screen when the situation requires prudence.

Currently, I don't see the use of the unit info screen as unethical; but I'd agree to not use it if my opponent thought it was unethical.

Similarly, I often think unit names are too discriptive. But I don't ignore them. This is just how the game is currently played.

However, I do currently have an opponent who renames his Company Commanders! This gives away which units are coy leaders! I've told him not to do that, as it gives me too much info. :doh:


cheers,
Cross

[Wdll]

I know I don't use the info screen to check the crew of anything. I use it if I haven't seen it before or to check the armour and weapons of the unit, but in no way to check the damage to it. I never even thought about it till you mentioned it. Still, I won't do it from now on, it just feels meh and I prefer to play my turn in less than half an hour.

[Imp]

Lol on renaiming Co Commanders I sometimes do in a Campaign vs AI as its easy to keep them out of trouble then but against another player may as well stick a beacon on his head.

Not realy an exploit but more as said a quick reference guide. Looking up crews left/damage could be classed as such & I dont do but to be honest if my opponent wants to thats fine. I think most people do not use to check for men left but could just be me.

Its time vs effect if you like in my opinion bothering to check is not worth the benefit but if a new vehicle has turned up worth a quick gander to access threat level.

Same goes for unit names think about if change them, the game uses 1 set of names. I have assorted T-80s or MkIIIs & now have to look at my info screen to see which have the 50 gun. The only way round that is icons diffrent enough to tell which defeats the whole object as its far enough away you cant recognise it. Also the person with the better memory has a huge advantage, my mate has a photographic one could learn all the icons. (Not joking read a bit from a book he has read recently & he can continue it word perfect)

As said before allowing for timeframe scale of the game & the fact could be a few days between turns playing or indeed several games I think the level of detail the game provides is fine.
House rules could cover things raised but if I wanted more fog of war would insist on hex grid off as makes much harder to tell where that shot came from.
But I am not fussed its his game & his call what he prefers, also once you play without for a while you become very good at judging distances so would give the player that plays that way an advantage.

The strange thing is most issues raised here would make no diffrence to me except to slow down play & make me pay more attention to the replay causing less fog of war.

Point in question the renaming a firing unit thats not seen.
I can catagorically say if it fires at me & does not become visible I only have an idea of the type of shot not the unit. Why because I am watching the action & by the time I realise should look at whos firing its to late & I am not going to watch it again to find out I know a gun or missile fired from around there & that will do me.

My view so far is suggestions cause more problems than they fix apart from maybe not listing men left if possible on info screen.

The only way to find out is play someone & see if any of it does make any diffrence but on spending time renaming units seriously I would rather watch paint dry. May be wrong but sure it was mentioned before that the reporting is deep in the code & will not change, so probably is the info.
To be worth it it has to have an impact on how the game plays like FOO, giro missile fire & diving helos we have had added recently which do.

One last point to keep in mind if someone wants to spend time using C of reds deploy trick, renaming units, repeatedly looking up info screen etc thats fine with me. The returns are small & they could instead actually have spent that time playing the game instead of getting bogged down on details.

You have made this as a subconcious decision already the benefit does not make using worthwhile exept in the odd case & therefore thats exactly what you do.

[c_of_red]

I agree that the returns are not worth the investment if you are on a time budget. I'm retired so to me it's rare that the difference between a 2 hour set up and a 3 hour set up doesn't mean much. I prolly spend more time fooling around with hte game then playing it. By fooling around I mean setting up test games to experiment with different things under controlled conditions. I enjoy analyzing the game as much as I do playing it against another human. My analysis leads me to believe thatthere is no silver bullet in SP. No 'trick' that will ensure victory or cannot be countered in so way.
That is a big part of the charm of SP and why it has lasted an age in the fast paced world of gaming.

[Imp]

C of Red
Agree entirely but there is a major diffrence in what you do compared to things like overusing the info screen IMO.
Your fidling probably gives you insights into the game & therefore makes you a better player.
Where as spending lots of time say renaming units rather than playing gives no insight into new tactics.

The person that spends hours picking his perfect force looking at info screens etc is probably easier to beat than the guy that just gets on & plays the game because hes using his time more effectivly & can use units in more varied ways because he does not always have the right tool for the job, that makes him dangerous.
Course he does need to spend enough time buying not to shoot himself in the foot but hes playing & learning with less time lost that is not doing so.
Hence the reason why I said am happy for my opponent to do any all of the above hes helping me:)
Dont have a go people just expresing a view.

[RERomine]

I figure I'll throw in my 2 cents.

There are some aspects of the "right click" that provide information that we shouldn't know. Ammo payload is one. There are many units that have specialized roles and there ammo payload is altered accordingly. I shouldn't be able to tell if it has 10 Sabot rounds as opposed to 25. Still, do I really care? It only takes one round to kill my tank and I'm not going to take up tracking the number and types of rounds fired by an enemy unit. For all I know, the enemy unit might be right next to an unseen ammo source. Another thing we should not know is infantry unit size. Ten men in a hex could be two 4-man patrols and one AT team or a 10-man squad. Tactically, it helps knowing you are dealing with three independent units as compared to one. I accept it because it is just how things are with the game.

On the other hand, we probably don't see as visibly damage that has been done. It was mentioned that some units might trail smoke; a tank gun tube blown off or a turret constantly pointing at the same angle would also be a sign of damage; secondary explosions in the impact zone of an artillery strike; infantry man "Bob" knows he got two enemy soldiers, etc.

The idea of renaming units isn't new. I've read stories of people renaming all there stuff to "truck". It makes targeting more complicated, but not impossible if you are careful. For those with the CD, the filter option isn't going to be tricked by a unit name change. If the firing unit is unseen, a different name could be confusing, but if the weapon can kill me I don't care if it is mounted on a tank, truck or hand carried. My unit is going to seek out cover.

I like to look at it this way. While we, the players, are just one person, our force is composed of hundreds or thousands of pairs of eyes and ears. These eyes and ears are trained for their time period. Who playing the game knows what every nation had during every time period the game covers? Nations of a given time period probably had a good idea what their most likely opponents were able to field. In those scenarios, the fog might not be as dense as we think. Even in unlikely scenarios, such as 1980 Brazil vs. South Africa, one could conclude such a war didn't just come out of no where and that the opponents studied up on each other before the shooting started. The encyclopedia and "right click" allow us to know what we probably would know if we were actually living and fighting during those time periods.

Looking at it another way, we have cases where the fog is denser than it should be. Consider an advanced scout next to a field. An enemy tank company moves out from a hidden position, across the field to another hidden position and no shots are fired. The replay won't show us a thing, even though the scout clearly saw the whole enemy unit go by. It shouldn't be that way, but again, it just is.

Overall, we probably know more and less than we should at the same time. There is no perfect answer. Eliminate the "right click" so you can tell if a unit is caring a small AT weapon such as the LAW and you don't get to see the TOW missile launcher which is big enough to be visible. You have to start trying to decide if a weapon is big enough to be seen or not. No "right click" and people will start complaining that they should have been able to see this or that. If the game had started without the "right click", people would be complaining the other way around.

[Imp]

Gads hes still alive.

[RERomine]

Gads hes still alive.

Yup. Life has been frantic and I disappeared into the "fog of war", for a while. :D

[Imp]

The only fog I seem to disappear into is alcohol induced, note to self probably wise to reduce consumption of said products, shame though.

[Lt. Ketch]

I would like to offer my two cents. There have been multiple issues that have come up over the course of this discussion but since I'm a late comer to the tread, I'll only address the ones that I feel are relavent at this stage of the discussion.

It seems the fog of war can be thick or thin, depending on who you are and what you like. There has been a lot of discussion that has occured, most of it good. I am all in favor for establishing "Gentlemen's Agreements" between players on a game per game basis. It makes sense that some of the ideas put forth will never happen for one reason or another. But players who feel strongly about one thing or another can request that an understanding be made in regards to unit names, information screens, etc.

I personally have never switched unit names or refrained from using the info screen, but am open to both ideas assuming the other player was o.k. with that. I would accualy like to play a game where the info screens are prohibited. I think it would be interesting.

All I ask of the SP generals across the world is that consideration be taken towards each other. We don't have to hate our opponent in order to beat them. As Cross has advocated in his signiture Conduct yourself with honur, and there is victory even in defeat To put it another way, as one of my opponents said, I harbour no malicious intent at all,,,no just a friendly game of kill or be killed.

My cents. Looking forward to playing any and all of you.

[RERomine]

Whenever you play against someone, just make sure all the ground rules are set up first. If it is a personal concern, bring it up and agree on it. Items/options not mentioned can be construed as fair game. Take nothing for granted. Once agreed upon, I would expect my opponent to uphold their end of the bargain.

I've never personally changed unit names with the intent on confusing/misleading anyone. If one is careful, renamed units doesn't really work. It's a chore to do anyhow. I went through that phase in my games against the AI to visibly group my units by name. Obviously, it's not going to confuse the AI. The last thing I want to do anymore is rename 100+ units in the hopes that I might confuse my opponent. With proper tactics, they can be defeated anyhow.

I'm not sure name changing really falls in the realm of "fog of war". Not much fog if a SABOT round whizzes by your tank. Seems to be more along the lines of "deception". It might be splitting hairs, but I view "fog of war" as just natural consequence of a confusing battle where as changing the unit name is an intentional attempt to deceive your opponent. Before long, we will be including Quaker guns and Patton's inflatable army in the game :)

[RERomine]

The only fog I seem to disappear into is alcohol induced, note to self probably wise to reduce consumption of said products, shame though.

Depends on if you want to see what is beyond the fog :eek:

[c_of_red]

I was under the impression that a right click just gives one the unit information screen, which would list the possible ammo load out for all units of that type, NOT what that particular unit has left on board. As far as renaming units, Greybeard over at the Blitz is famous for that. I asked him why once and he said because he could. He didn't do it to gain an advantage because he knew he wouldn't. The one time I tried re-naming a unit, my reward was a load of ICM and a burning FIST-V. It turned out that opponent shot at EVERYTHING, so he didn't care what the name was or prolly never even noticed.
There are some things you can do that you just can't ask your opponent about in the first place, since asking about them makes them not worth doing, so you might as well not do them.
I would never do my offsides play on a newbie, or even an old hand that I was playing the first time. Even though they would never know I did it. After I got to know them by playing a few games, then I might, IF I thought they would be cool with it and the circumstances warranted it. Gen SP at the blitz caught me one time. It was a map with lots of little hamlets and one big town just across the line on his side of the map. I went 90% infantry, since I was playing the Soviets and my plan involved denying him easy kill points while my soviet hordes advanced slowly thru the small town. About half way thru he wanted to know how my infantry got so far so fast, since he had the roads covered from the game start and was pretty sure no transport got into town. So I told him. He wasn't upset, but I was pretty sure he wouldn't be before I did it.

[RERomine]

You are correct in the fact that the "right click" gives you the full payload for that unit, but doesn't give you an up to date tally of what it has left during a battle. The problem is, it does give you the payload.

**********

Here is an example:
October, 2020
US M1A2 SEP Abrams
Urban MBT Co

Two different guns (both 120mm), but otherwise the same tank. Both have 30 rounds of HE. The difference is one has 10 rounds HEAT, no SABOT and the other has 10 rounds SABOT and no HEAT. Without being in the tank, you shouldn't be able to tell one from the other. The "right click" allows you to tell them apart and you are likely to be more aggressive against the one with just HE and HEAT.

**********

Greybeard is a good player. I learned a lot from him, but I've worked around the renaming thing. Some people do it to try to catch you being careless. If a hex has a group of trucks and M1A2 tanks, but they are all named M1A2, just determine which one in the stack you want to hit. Using the target option and cycling through you can pick out your target. If there are five vehicles in the hex and the middle one is your desired target, the first time the target cycle goes through, it will pick the one closest to the top of the hex, second time it will pick the second from the top, third time the third from the top (your desired target), etc. Targeting sometimes bounces around so you have to pay attention while you are doing this. This works because the game stacks the units in the hex in ID order and targeting cycles through similarly. If one whole 4-tank platoon (group B in this case) is in the hex, from top to bottom, they would be listed B0, B1, B2 and B3.

Now, I would find it quite disconcerting if you could rename your weapons. If someone fired a 120mm SABOT round at my tank and it said "Bottle Rocket" was fired at it, that would bother me. As it is, if I see that a "Truck" fired a 120mm SABOT round, even if I can't see the "Truck", I'm going to respect the capability of the gun.

One tactic or trick (depending on your perspective) is to plot artillery where I think/know someone going to eventually be. If they aren't there yet, I walk the plots around to keep them where I want them. It creates a delay since you don't want rounds to drop if they aren't likely to be there when the steel rain starts. This may be considered to be gamey, but I prefer to think of it as an "At My Command" artillery call where they are waiting back at the guns for the "Fire" command. This would be contrary to Weasel's artillery rules, so it is important to determine what the ground rules are. There is no guaranty that your enemy will walk into the impact zone, but it increases the possibility of hitting a group on the move. When it's use is permitted, I find the tactic quite effective and deadly.

[RightDeve]

One tactic or trick (depending on your perspective) is to plot artillery where I think/know someone going to eventually be. If they aren't there yet, I walk the plots around to keep them where I want them. It creates a delay since you don't want rounds to drop if they aren't likely to be there when the steel rain starts. This may be considered to be gamey, but I prefer to think of it as an "At My Command" artillery call where they are waiting back at the guns for the "Fire" command. This would be contrary to Weasel's artillery rules, so it is important to determine what the ground rules are. There is no guaranty that your enemy will walk into the impact zone, but it increases the possibility of hitting a group on the move. When it's use is permitted, I find the tactic quite effective and deadly.

I use that "trick" too. I call it "hovering shells", as it may come down to the enemy at any moment. It is particularly useful for me when deployed far behind on the enemy arty's park zone.
In meeting engagements, when we only acquire 1 quick-arty-hex (TRP), we can't plot our arty quickly to "important" target areas if done in post-turn 0. So I'm relying much on the turn-0 bombardment setup where the arty can be called quickly in any decisive moment (delay it to turn 1 first). I'm grouping my arty into two if in ME:

1. is the arty rolling barrage in front of my forces or enemy's. It sure will delay his advance (or atleast making him to choose another route)

2. the "hovering shells" on the enemy rear areas. Once the enemy's arty has popped out it's smoke/dust (after doing some shelling) then my "hovering shells" can unleash it's fury all the way till the guns silenced.

I consider attacking first the enemy's arty (with as much little delay as possible) as a first priority due to my habits of purchasing on-map arty. Once his arty silenced, I can freely move up and down all the fury of my arty.

Have no idea if this one is gamey, though

[Cross]

The practice of plotting artillery for future strike at a specific place is realistic, not gamey. The FOO makes sure his guns are sighted in, then they just wait for the order to fire.
There may have been a couple of ranging shots (depending on nation and era) that aren't seen in the game

The FOO can adjust this plot without having to stonk a target.
And as a player you pay the price of delay each time the target is adjusted.

You have also committed your guns to a target location where the enemy may not even appear.

[c_of_red]

I agree with Cross and use the 'hovering' arty EVERY game.
I was thrown off the Blitz for proving Weasel to be wrong on this issue.
My theory is that if it is a technique (AKA tactic or trick) used in the real world and I can cite instances and give historical references to it's use, it ain't gamey.
Other players go by the Sgt Rock rule, which is if they didn't see it happening in Sgt Rock, then it is gamey.
Oh well, different strokes for different folks.

[RERomine]

You have also committed your guns to a target location where the enemy may not even appear.

Always a risk with artillery unless you are plotting against an immobile or pinned down target. The way I view it, if the arty has nothing better to do, it might as well be plotted against something. If nothing shows up, they don't fire, no ammo wasted and no need to relocate.

[Suhiir]

One tactic or trick (depending on your perspective) is to plot artillery where I think/know someone going to eventually be. If they aren't there yet, I walk the plots around to keep them where I want them. It creates a delay since you don't want rounds to drop if they aren't likely to be there when the steel rain starts. This may be considered to be gamey, but I prefer to think of it as an "At My Command" artillery call where they are waiting back at the guns for the "Fire" command. This would be contrary to Weasel's artillery rules, so it is important to determine what the ground rules are. There is no guaranty that your enemy will walk into the impact zone, but it increases the possibility of hitting a group on the move. When it's use is permitted, I find the tactic quite effective and deadly.

Nothing at all gamey about this.
I was trained as an FO and since WinSPMBT doesn't allow you to plot a fire mission and hold the guns in readiness to fire on command you have to adjust them every turn so they don't actually fire until you want them to. It's simply side stepping a situation where game mechanics won't allow you to do something that would be, and is, commonly done.

Situations like this are no fault of the game design, just a matter of programming limitations.

[Cross]

A another thought about the right click unit info.

Being able to see the number of crew, to determine if the tank is damaged, may not be an exploit. In real life we'd probably agree that sometimes tank damage is visible, sometimes not. The more seriously the tank is damaged, the more likely the damage is visible.

In SP you can damage a tank without any crew becoming casualties; so crew losses are not a foolproof way of determining if a tank is damaged. But the more the tank is damaged, the more likely that crew will be missing. Therefore, checking unit info for missing crew could be considered a 'realistic' reflection of whether you can tell if the tank is damaged or not.

However, I do think unit info gives away too much weapon info, especially for infantry sections.

While on the topic of AFV damage and FoW. I like the damage notification ** or **** . It's possibly not the most realistic aspect of the game, particularly as it even lets you know the likely extent of the damage, but it's very satisfying :D Though I'm sure a case can made that experienced gunners can guesstimate how hard they just hit something.

I lean well towards the realism side of things, but in the end this is a game, and it has to be fun.

It's not like the old SPWaW spidey sense * that let you know when you were spotted. That was unrealistic and annoying.

cheers,
Cross

[RERomine]

With infantry weapons, eventually you will get to a point where you can tell pretty much what they have. The major issue seems to be with infantry AT weapons and there it depends on the weapon. There are some that probably can be spotted a click away and other won't be seen until they are prepped for fire. The Russian RPG-29 is basically a bazooka with a 6 foot long tube and readily more visible than the RPG-22 or US M72 LAW are easier to keep hidden. There is no real way to make that realistic without gutting the code. At least you have the FOW element of not knowing if the unit has any left.

I don't think people worry about small arms. They all generally have the same basic range and have the same basic capability. All squads/sections seem to have some sort of integrated machine guns and they all seem to have grenades. There to tend to be a few twists in there, but I treat them all the same; they are all dangerous and need to be destroyed as quickly as possible. Even if they don't have anything but a pistol, they have that hot line to the player who can bring in artillery if desired.

I try to keep my armor over 500m away from enemy squads/sections and it generally won't matter what they are carrying. If they get to point blank range, you might run into Rambo with a grenade.

The subject could be beat to death all day long, but I think we pretty much have what we are going to get.

[Suhiir]

With infantry weapons, eventually you will get to a point where you can tell pretty much what they have. The major issue seems to be with infantry AT weapons and there it depends on the weapon. There are some that probably can be spotted a click away and other won't be seen until they are prepped for fire. The Russian RPG-29 is basically a bazooka with a 6 foot long tube and readily more visible than the RPG-22 or US M72 LAW are easier to keep hidden. There is no real way to make that realistic without gutting the code. At least you have the FOW element of not knowing if the unit has any left.

One thing you could do if you think such units should be easier to spot is change the unit size.

Normally 2-3 man AT teams are size 0.
As a standard part of the code such units are harder to spot (even with the automatic spotting bonus you get when an ATGM fires).
If you make them size 1 they'll be more easily spotted both before and after they fire.

Just an idea for what it's worth.

[RERomine]

One thing you could do if you think such units should be easier to spot is change the unit size.

Normally 2-3 man AT teams are size 0.
As a standard part of the code such units are harder to spot (even with the automatic spotting bonus you get when an ATGM fires).
If you make them size 1 they'll be more easily spotted both before and after they fire.

Just an idea for what it's worth.

Not meaning to be difficult, but the men will still be larger than whatever they carry so the unit should still be visible at the same point.

What really needs to be done, and it won't happen, is unit spotting needs to be independent of weapon identification. Someone has mentioned it in this thread before. Weapons would have to be assigned a "size" beyond just "warhead size". In this case "size" would represent the physical size of the weapon. It would be nice to use warhead size as a reference, but a grenade has WH=3, where a rifle has WH=1. Obviously, the rifle is larger and more visible than the grenade so that won't work. Once the "weapon size" is decided on, then it is just a matter of deciding at what range such weapon sizes could be identified. I figure weapon identification would be automatic if it was fired or used.

The big problem is the code base is complete and anything done has to be integrated into the existing code. It would effectively have to be gutted. Many suggestions by people would probably be considered if they were starting to program from scratch.

One interesting thought on unit size, does anyone know if there is a cumulative size count of units in a hex? Basically, if you have 100 snipers in one hex, would they all be unspotted (given that at that range one sniper normally would remain unseen) or would the fact they are having a "sniper convention" give away some of them? :dk:

[c_of_red]

I seem to remember reading that the more units in a hex, the greater the chance of ONE of them getting hit by shell fragments. Also you can damage your own unit by same hex combat with grenades, HEAT rounds from AT weapons, etc. So there is at least one subroutine that "looks" at unit density in a hex. You might want to try that. Set up a test and buy 100 snipers, put them in a hex, if you can and then direct fire a 100mm shell into that hex. Then run and hide before the UN shows up with a war crimes warrant.

[RERomine]

I don't doubt they can be hit, if you know to fire there to begin with. If the "sniper convention" is in a hex and no one moves, would the likelihood of them being spotted be increased by the shear number of them in the hex. It would be hard to target the convention if you don't know where it is.

[Suhiir]

To the best of my knowledge the unit size of each individual unit stacked in a hex is checked individually for spotting purposes. There is no cumlative effect. However multiple units in the same hex mean more checks to see if someone is spotted so there is in effect a sort of cumlative effect.