Spotting and Surprise!

[sPzAbt653]

Moved this bit from the Oddities Thread.

Screenshot from the stock 1939 Campaign, no moves executed.

[sPzAbt653]

Select the Tank unit and plot it to move to Poznan.

[sPzAbt653]

Tank unit is surprised by Enemy Contact, suffers losses and loses the ability to move further and to make any attacks. [Were the Germans really surprised that the Poznan Army was in Poznan? I'll paraphrase some one else's comment that this type of game mechanic blunts spearheards and discourages blitzkreig tactics. Maybe harsh, but close to true?].

[sPzAbt653]

Now plot and execute the same Tank unit to move to this hex. The unit stops in this hex, nothing changes.

[sPzAbt653]

However, when movement is ended by de-selecting the unit, the unit Spots.

[sPzAbt653]

Now the unit can move up and attack. Compared to posts 1-3, this doesn't seem to be consistent behavior.

[sPzAbt653]

For a different look, compare this shot to post #1. After this units moves one hex and stops, it spots. Prior to movement it had not even spotted the hexes adjacent. Although non-spotted adjacent hexes aren't always the case, non-moved units never have their full spotting ranges utilized until after they move [the same at sea].

[sPzAbt653]

Each time this unit moves one hex and stops, it spots. If it executes these moves in one bound, no spotting occurs until the movement is ended. Its the same move, with different results.

[sPzAbt653]

Therefore, no matter how good intentioned the current behavior is, the end result is that it forces players to move one hex at a time [Ok, we are not forced to, we just like to do it that way!]. Tedious enough on land, at sea this is a nightmare.

In post #5, the two units that we see at Poznan are what I would expect to see prior to any movement and with FOW ON. With FOW OFF I would expect these two units to be fully revealed. This would, of course, eliminate Surprise Attacks, but that is ok with me as I don't see where they represent anything accurately for this scale of game. Rare are cases during WWII that the presence of enemy armys and corps were completely unknown. Air bases were known, the position of capital ships were most often known. Units should not be completely invisible and also allowed to cause enemy units that come in contact with them to lose steps and all movement. Weren't defenders ever surprised ?

Just my opinion, I could be completely wrong. Love playing this game, hate moving one hex at a time [:)]

[Calaf]

+1

[jhdeerslayer]

+1

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Select the Tank unit and plot it to move to Poznan.

[font="Courier New"]-1[/font]

I think I can understand your stomach pain in this area of the game mechanics quite well. But I guess this "problem" has more to do with a seeming contradiction of "expectation of a result" and "visible result" than with an actual weakness of the move mechanics. I feel like you are unconsciously expecting the battalion behavior of an Panzergeneral. But precisely in the movement behavior of the land units and Especially in your example, I see no real problems.

In your example (I mean here an average span of 7 days/turn) you give your tank group in the abstraction of an SC3 following command:

Day 1, Tank Group march to the Hexfeld Poznan and take this strategic goal. Resistance is theoretically possible but an active reconnaissance is deliberately omitted. Attack, where a will is, is also a victory! Results at the end of the first day: Fighting with an existing Polish army, presumably even with the advantage of a "prepared attack" on the side of the opponent. (The expression "surprise" I find here actually somewhat misleading, it is actually rather a calculated risk) So, command has been executed. Target not reached. But: result as expected in the case of a not "empty" city!

In the following, you give a completely different (but at this abstraction level and without renouncing targeted area reconnaissance) very meaningful command: Day 1, armor group move slowly forward, take a safe position and clear from there the environment within your possibilities. Day 2-7, move forward, take an attack position and attack the recognized defenders of the city of Poznan. Command has been (successfully) executet. Goal achieved. Result as expected in the (superior) attack on a defended city.

Now, at my age, I may already be subject to a weakening will to change, but in this area, especially in this example, I still lack a real necessity of an intervention. Ok, the concept of a surprise attack should actually be abandoned as long as there is no active command (with the associated behavioral routines) to prepare a "ambush" for a unit.

What does not mean that there are no "exciters" in the behavior of units in other areas. In the case of the submarines: Prevention of emergency dive through encirclement by naval vessels!)

[8D]

[The Land]

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield


In the following, you give a completely different (but at this abstraction level and without renouncing targeted area reconnaissance) very meaningful command: Day 1, armor group move slowly forward, take a safe position and clear from there the environment within your possibilities. Day 2-7, move forward, take an attack position and attack the recognized defenders of the city of Poznan. Command has been (successfully) executet. Goal achieved. Result as expected in the (superior) attack on a defended city.

It's still a design problem though.

The player faces no actual tradeoff or decision to make except whether to spend more of their (out-of-game) time moving the unit hex by hex, or whether to do the obvious thing the interface wants you to, and then accept the risk of suboptimal results.

That's sloppy game design.

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: The Land

It's still a design problem though.

That's sloppy game design.

Your desire for a different game mechanics may have its reasons. But I would rather not comment on your conclusion here. Too bad.

[:(]

[Seminole]

ORIGINAL: The Land

The player faces no actual tradeoff or decision to make except whether to spend more of their (out-of-game) time moving the unit hex by hex, or whether to do the obvious thing the interface wants you to, and then accept the risk of suboptimal results.

I'm in this camp as well. Because it can be obviated by tedium (with no other trade off with respect distance unit can travel, etc) it doesn't make much sense to me. Basically a penalty to the AI against a 'patient' player.

[sPzAbt653]

an average span of 7 days/turn ... Results at the end of the first day: Fighting with an existing Polish army

I think this actually supports my position on the matter, because doesn't this mean that for days 2 thru 7 the attacking tank unit sits and does nothing?

in this example, I still lack a real necessity of an intervention.

No problem there, this is why I took the time to post all this, because I would like to know what others think. Thank you for taking the time to post about it, although I am still not convinced [but we do have a bit of a language barrier as I don't quite understand all of your points [:)] ]

[sPzAbt653]

The player faces no actual tradeoff or decision to make except whether to spend more of their (out-of-game) time moving the unit hex by hex, or whether to do the obvious thing the interface wants you to, and then accept the risk of suboptimal results.

Well put !

That's sloppy game design.

I know what you mean but that sounds kind of harsh. During five months of beta testing I can certify that nothing sloppy was going on. The developers are tight, knowledgeable, and very responsive to issues. During that time this 'surprise' mechanic did come up a couple of times but none of us [beta testers] pressed the issue as it is be presented here. So I would conclude that the developers may likely take the position of Mr. Battlefield, and consider the position of those new to the system as possibly condemning a mechanic that is not fully understood. If this is the case then this is actually anti-sloppy behavior, as we don't want changes made on whims.

[wie201]

The "surprise" factor I think works very well in one area, and that is being surprised by a submarine. In a head-to-head match up a British Light Cruiser took 7 steps of damage when it ran into a U-Boat. In another game a U-Boat caused 6 points of damage on a light cruiser and sunk it. In this context, even though I was the Allied player, I liked the effect the game engine had.

As to whether an Army with, I assume, attached recon sections, can be ambushed by another Army, in a city no less, well, maybe it should at least be able to attack its ambusher.

[sPzAbt653]

it can be obviated by tedium (with no other trade off with respect distance unit can travel

Indeed ! But most often I find that the unit can travel the same distance. However, I am not advocating any penalties for moving one hex at a time [this is merely a solution to the matter]. What I am advocating is a change to the FOW mechanics.

[sPzAbt653]

Basically a penalty to the AI against a 'patient' player.

Thanks for mentioning this, as it is no small penalty and could maybe be a possible balance issue. The computer doesn't move one hex at a time and is therefore more susceptible to surprise losses than the human. Again, I am not advocating changing movement rules, it's the FOW that I disagree with.