[PvK]

Some good points there, though I think it makes sense to consider a comparison to less realistic games. Some of the points only stand out because the game is as realistic as it is, whereas in almost every other game, those kinds of issues don't even come up because they don't even try to give each character individual fog of war.

In a game with short turns and individual soldiers like 101, if a soldier spots an attacker as they attack, and survives the attack, it gives them the ability to respond immediately. That happens often enough, it seems to me, in 101. Far more likely, even at close range, is that someone attacked will not be able to respond immediately, due to panic, fear, stun, indecision, reflexes, confusion, misunderstanding, facing the wrong way, or simple failure to make sense of what is going on. This is represented by not spotting the enemy sometimes when they attack, and having to either guess and dive to cover, and/or take some time with the "Look" command trying to figure it out.

As for surrendering men, it would look better yes if they would not just stand still until the fight was over, but it would take a lot of programming to make them do what real surrendering soldiers would do. That would be cool to see, but imagination can serve, too. That is, in reality, they'd have to throw down their weapons and probably be ordered to walk towards the enemies they surrendered to. If that process were interrupted and it looked like they might change their minds and go for a weapon, any enemies might be highly inclined to shoot them before they got out of a vulnerable unarmed position. So, the assumption that you should be able to occupy just the location of the surrendered soldier and get him back, takes literally the behaviour of having him just stand in place, rather than being captured and probably ordered to a place where you probably would have to defeat the other enemies to get him back safely.

PvK