Spotting and Surprise!

[sPzAbt653]

being surprised by a submarine

Thank you, I hadn't mentioned in this thread that Subs are different. Subs are truly 'ambush' attackers and need to be treated that way.

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

...but we do have a bit of a language barrier as I don't quite understand all of your points [:)] ]

You need to read my French, that is even worse than my English! SIPRES already has tears in his eyes...
[:D]

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks for the feedback everyone and to clarify the movement and spotting rules from the top posts, you can't actually move 1 hex at a time and fully spot (although at first glance it may seem that this is exactly what is happening).

The movement and spotting rules currently work like the following:

1) a full move, i.e. maximum AP will result in the final movement position ending with full spotting to the maximum spotting range a land unit is capable of. In this case most land units (if not all) are set to spot 2 hexes.

2) a partial move, i.e. not to the full extent of capable AP for that unit will also result in full spotting up to that partially moved position.

3) subsequent moves after the partial move result in only 1 hex of spotting for any additional 1 hex at a time movements

* * *

The framework of these rules achieve the following in game results:

a) The result of 1) can result in a unit surprised along its movement path, either halfway through or right up to the end of its movement path in a surprise encounter with an enemy. The reason for this is that no recon has been performed along this path. The top post of the tank moving from its at start position to Poznan is an example of this.

b) Performing a partial move as described in 2) could be considered a "recon move" and can be useful in making a move let's say up to 2 hexes outside of Poznan to see if there are enemy units located there before proceeding. This works whether you deselect the unit and then reselect it after a partial move, or if you were to make a partial move, not undo the move and then decide to move along a bit further towards Poznan. The subsequent post showing the Tank unit initially moving within 2 hexes of Poznan and then continuing towards Poznan and not getting surprised shows this rule in action.

c) Performing a partial move and then subsequently moving several more hexes, i.e. 1 at a time, as described in 3) would result in a surprise encounter with a hidden enemy unit along the path as each subsequently moved hex has a reduced spotting of only 1. An example of this would be to move the Tank unit 1 hex at a time towards Poznan and you would end with a resulting surprise encounter. Even performing an initial partial move that leaves the Tank unit 3 hexes outside of Poznan on its first move, and then moving 1 hex at a time would also result in a surprise encounter as the first partial move left Poznan outside of the spotting range of 2 for the Tank unit.

* * *

The idea behind this rule set was to eliminate the 1 hex at a time spotting exploit that we also recognized during development, but to also have something that worked with the new dynamic movement opportunities that this latest game offers which didn't exist in our old games. For example in the past there was no opportunity to perform a "recon move" as described in 2) before continuing on to your final objective and now that opportunity exists.

Granted this does not necessarily mean the current implementation is perfect and not necessarily in need of possible changes, something we will discuss internally based on this type of feedback, I just wanted to hopefully clarify the rules and implementation as they currently exist in game to hopefully paint a better picture of what was actually happening from the various observations.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

[sPzAbt653]

In the Feedback category, hopefully constructive: This all seems way too complex for a Strategic game with hexes that are 20 miles across.
The new Dynamic Movement is a great feature [which hasn't been hailed enough], but to retain spotting and surprise diminishes it. It would seem more appropriate to have movement penalties for entering enemy an ZOC and for conducting attacks.

[Yogol]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

[Were the Germans really surprised that the Poznan Army was in Poznan?].

That's up to you to decide...

If you want the Germans to be surprised, play with Fog Of War on.
If you don't, then turn it off.

It seems perfectly logical that you can have these kind of surprise encounters when you decided to play with FOW on.

To me, the game does this feature just fine. There is no one-step-micro-managing nor unrealistic full-knowledge.

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

In the Feedback category, hopefully constructive: This all seems way too complex for a Strategic game with hexes that are 20 miles across.
The new Dynamic Movement is a great feature [which hasn't been hailed enough], but to retain spotting and surprise diminishes it. It would seem more appropriate to have movement penalties for entering enemy an ZOC and for conducting attacks.

I can see at first glance how it can seem quite complex and really it is just an careful implementation (with a long winded explanation above) to avoid the 1 hex at a time exploit that we recognized during development. Other than that it works as it did in previous versions of SC with one additional consideration in place (the recon move) to handle dynamic movement as well.

On the surprise encounters, personally I can see how there is an argument to be made that the Germans might anticipate the unit disposition around Poznan on turn one, but this is a general rule and not every situation will be similar to Poznan as the game moves forward.

Additionally it is not always a guarantee that a surprise encounter will result in the defender attacking first.

While we do give a bit of an ambush bonus for the hidden defender, there will be times that even despite this bonus the surprise encounter can still end with your option to attack (or not) as the "attacker" if the numbers are in your favor.

[The Land]

Interesting post, thanks Hubert. Didn't appreciate that initial vs subsequent movement was treated differently "under the hood". So in StPz's original example, his 2nd method is actually optimal for an objective of Poznan, but not if his objective is something past Poznan.

I still feel this is a bit strange in terms of player experience, as there's nothing that leads a player to view their initial movement with a unit as any different from the rest of their movement with the same unit. After all it is not like anything else has happened in the game, or the game is telling them to expect anything different to happen. Could do with stronger signposting in the interface somehow (do you need to account for "recons" as a separate number like "strikes?)

In any case, I'd still question whether "surprise" is really an appropriate concept in a corps-level game. I am struggling to think of occasions when corps-level land units were actually surprised while on the offensive in 20th-century warfare, and failing. Surprise really is something that belongs to the attacker rather than the defender - in the example with the Poznan Army above, it would probably be the Poznan Army that was surprised by the sudden appearance of a panzer army so quickly?

[gravyface_]

I just want the surprise hex to be the actual hex the enemy unit is in, not the hex that's adjacent to it. Getting tired of moving next to a city and taking surprise damage.

[vonRocko]

ORIGINAL: gravyface_

I just want the surprise hex to be the actual hex the enemy unit is in, not the hex that's adjacent to it. Getting tired of moving next to a city and taking surprise damage.

+1 Yes.

[The Land]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

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.

Just wanted to clarify that "sloppy" only referred to this particular point - on which it turns out I was wrong in any case, as there is in fact a tradeoff for the player. (I still think it could work better, but my initial post didn't have the correct facts to support it)

I do appreciate the challenges involved in this kind of design scenario and generally I'm pretty impressed by the game, and also by the devs' presence in the forums talking about things

[ame]

The way Hubert says only applies to moving hex by hex DURING a SINGLE move. But if you repeatedly move one tile and right click to deselect the unit, it spots around it, allowing you to avoid surprise attacks.

[xwormwood]

ORIGINAL: gravyface_

I just want the surprise hex to be the actual hex the enemy unit is in, not the hex that's adjacent to it. Getting tired of moving next to a city and taking surprise damage.

Good point.

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: gravyface_

...Getting tired of moving next to a city and taking surprise damage.

Whether in the single player mode or later in a multiplayer game: If my opponent refuses to carry out an appropriate reconnaissance and thus remains unprepared next to one of my defending units, it would be more than just odd if such behavior were not punished with an immediate attack.

[KorutZelva]

ORIGINAL: ame

The way Hubert says only applies to moving hex by hex DURING a SINGLE move. But if you repeatedly move one tile and right click to deselect the unit, it spots around it, allowing you to avoid surprise attacks.

At the very least, make it so that you don't have to deselect it. Let's not make it tedious for nothing.

[xwormwood]

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield

ORIGINAL: gravyface_

...Getting tired of moving next to a city and taking surprise damage.

Whether in the single player mode or later in a multiplayer game: If my opponent refuses to carry out an appropriate reconnaissance and thus remains unprepared next to one of my defending units, it would be more than just odd if such behavior were not punished with an immediate attack.

Not sure about this. After all this is a strategic game, not a tactical game like Panzer General. Therefor I have to assume that recon units are already integral part of my land combat units. And with this comes the recon ability and and recon activity of my units.

I would like to suggest to create a mode where a unit forfeit its recon ability to get one more hex movement allowance. If activated, the units will suffer from suprise assaults.

[The Land]

ORIGINAL: Xwormwood
Not sure about this. After all this is a strategic game, not a tactical game like Panzer General. Therefor I have to assume that recon units are already integral part of my land combat units. And with this comes the recon ability and and recon activity of my units.

Quite - this is a corps-level game, and the highest level "recon" unit historically was probably an armoured cavalry regiment, more probably a battalion-level unit integral to a division (probably rarely deployed as a full battalion but split into subunits along each axis of advance). It's likely that in many situations corps-level units would have had air recon assets available to them, which are poorly modelled by the game's "air recon" function.

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: The Land

ORIGINAL: Xwormwood
Not sure about this. After all this is a strategic game, not a tactical game like Panzer General. Therefor I have to assume that recon units are already integral part of my land combat units. And with this comes the recon ability and and recon activity of my units.

Quite - this is a corps-level game, and the highest level "recon" unit historically was probably an armoured cavalry regiment, more probably a battalion-level unit integral to a division (probably rarely deployed as a full battalion but split into subunits along each axis of advance). It's likely that in many situations corps-level units would have had air recon assets available to them, which are poorly modelled by the game's "air recon" function.

Quite right, a strategy game. A game in which we adapt to the given strategic possibilities and make use of them. Nobody wants to make a Panzergeneral out of Strategic Command but currently we have a new movement system and units with special reconnaissance capacities. I am very welcome to any neatly balanced adaptation of the game engine based on our feedback. But sometimes, when discussing this issue, I have the impression that the game mechanic is faulty and can not be played properly without an intervention. I can not agree with such an opinion at any time.

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: gravyface_

I just want the surprise hex to be the actual hex the enemy unit is in, not the hex that's adjacent to it. Getting tired of moving next to a city and taking surprise damage.

Yes, this seems sensible. Isn't that how it works in Panzer General style games? Was this mechanic tried out in testing?

[gravyface_]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

ORIGINAL: gravyface_

I just want the surprise hex to be the actual hex the enemy unit is in, not the hex that's adjacent to it. Getting tired of moving next to a city and taking surprise damage.

Yes, this seems sensible. Isn't that how it works in Panzer General style games? Was this mechanic tried out in testing?

Yep, that's my point: it's a tried-and-true game mechanic that's been discarded in this game, for reasons I don't understand.

[gravyface_]

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield

ORIGINAL: The Land

ORIGINAL: Xwormwood
Not sure about this. After all this is a strategic game, not a tactical game like Panzer General. Therefor I have to assume that recon units are already integral part of my land combat units. And with this comes the recon ability and and recon activity of my units.

Quite - this is a corps-level game, and the highest level "recon" unit historically was probably an armoured cavalry regiment, more probably a battalion-level unit integral to a division (probably rarely deployed as a full battalion but split into subunits along each axis of advance). It's likely that in many situations corps-level units would have had air recon assets available to them, which are poorly modelled by the game's "air recon" function.

Quite right, a strategy game. A game in which we adapt to the given strategic possibilities and make use of them. Nobody wants to make a Panzergeneral out of Strategic Command but currently we have a new movement system and units with special reconnaissance capacities. I am very welcome to any neatly balanced adaptation of the game engine based on our feedback. But sometimes, when discussing this issue, I have the impression that the game mechanic is faulty and can not be played properly without an intervention. I can not agree with such an opinion at any time.

But we kinda did already. I mean, let's not kid ourselves, this is a casual "strategic" game that's a lot closer to Panzer General than not.

Fun as hell, but this is not a strategic simulation by any stretch of the imagination.