Still really bugs me..

[wodin]

Mark but they would know the enemy was there in game as they'd have just been fired on by it, which is the part that bugs me..you get fire don by a unit then next minute it's as if they'd not existed and they just disappear, this is where the game strikes me as odd, surely if you'd just been fire don you'd shoot back at where the fire had come from but you can't suddenly in this game as they disappear and it seems your soldiers forgot the enemy was just there. It makes sense that once the enemy fires on you you have a chance of spotting where the fire comes from..then if spotted your allowed to shoot that way. The enemy should only go out of sight if it moves away under cover or say drops into a hide stance if in a building, but you still should be able to fire at the building as you know the enemy is in there..it just fired at you.

[benpark]

There's a fine line in games- how much imagination will I put into something before it starts to feel like it's a crutch for the system or design of the game. Then immersion breaks, and one loses interest.

I find this issue to be well within my suspension of disbelief- the unit that fire just came from/was fired on has ducked back out of sight. The "firefight" was the turn where fire was exchanged and units were spotted. For my units to risk firing again, they have to stick their cardboard/pixel heads up to re-engage- and thus spotting kicks back in. That's my own thought process when playing.

The main thing is that this keeps the game moving in an interesting way- units aren't constantly seen after first spotted. This feels MORE believable to me than many other games. Although the terrain looks a certain way- a quick look out one's window will show lots of vision-blocking terrain.

[tyrion22]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Mark but they would know the enemy was there in game as they'd have just been fired on by it, which is the part that bugs me..you get fire don by a unit then next minute it's as if they'd not existed and they just disappear, this is where the game strikes me as odd, surely if you'd just been fire don you'd shoot back at where the fire had come from but you can't suddenly in this game as they disappear and it seems your soldiers forgot the enemy was just there. It makes sense that once the enemy fires on you you have a chance of spotting where the fire comes from..then if spotted your allowed to shoot that way. The enemy should only go out of sight if it moves away under cover or say drops into a hide stance if in a building, but you still should be able to fire at the building as you know the enemy is in there..it just fired at you.

I think you forget that a hex is large. The assumption probably is that they have moved when they become unspotted, but small tactical relocations like this are too small to be an action in the game. A building that is large enough to fill a hex is bound to have lots of windows, so why would you stay in the one window that is fired at?

[wodin]

OK fair enough. It's the rigidity of it that feels unnatural.Every 5 mins the enemy will disappear. I'd rather have it that the player\AI can put the unit into hide mode(i.e keeping away from windows or dropping behind cover) that would use an action point than them all disappearing every five minutes.

ORIGINAL: oivind22

ORIGINAL: wodin

Mark but they would know the enemy was there in game as they'd have just been fired on by it, which is the part that bugs me..you get fire don by a unit then next minute it's as if they'd not existed and they just disappear, this is where the game strikes me as odd, surely if you'd just been fire don you'd shoot back at where the fire had come from but you can't suddenly in this game as they disappear and it seems your soldiers forgot the enemy was just there. It makes sense that once the enemy fires on you you have a chance of spotting where the fire comes from..then if spotted your allowed to shoot that way. The enemy should only go out of sight if it moves away under cover or say drops into a hide stance if in a building, but you still should be able to fire at the building as you know the enemy is in there..it just fired at you.

I think you forget that a hex is large. The assumption probably is that they have moved when they become unspotted, but small tactical relocations like this are too small to be an action in the game. A building that is large enough to fill a hex is bound to have lots of windows, so why would you stay in the one window that is fired at?

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: wodin

The spotting rule..I hate it. If there could be an option to change the rule so that if a unit has fired then it stays visible at least to the unit it fired at I'd be so happy. AT the moment it just feels very odd and not right at all being unable to fire back.

I can see the rule eventually bugging me so much I move on from the game sadly.

So stop trying to spot. I tried spotting rolls when I first started playing too. It uses up time if you fail -- time you really need with tight turn limits -- and neutralizes your leader. Once I began playing without spotting, my games became much easier to win, in less time. You always need to be advancing in an offensive role, so don't sit back and try to spot. On the defensive, allow the enemy to move all he wants so you don't need to make spotting rolls.

[HobbesACW]

As the decision to make use of the computer to change a few things from the boardgame has already been made maybe a few other changes could make it into the PC version. I like the idea of a +1 spotting chance for a unit that was spotted on the previous turn. Hidden units are obviously a big change from the boardgame version - but it seems the unit counters themselves never become hidden again once spotted? Is this the case? (Just starting my second game so not sure about a few things). A bit of a slippery slope though

[Lee1952]

For the actual boardgame, I suppose you could implement a house rule (haven't thought this completely through yet) requiring that during the Admin phase, any unit with a Fired or Movement marker on them that is in a hex that would require spotting the next turn, roll a die and, on a roll of 1 or 2, remains spotted (place a spotted marker on them).

Disadvantage: adds some extra "fiddlyness" to the game.

Advantage: Attempts to model both the skill of a unit attempting to spot as well as a unit trying to regain concealment. I am thinking along the lines of a unit that was fired upon scrambling to get out of the line of fire, changing position slightly, ducking out of sight etc., but one or two guys don't get down far enough, or stick their head up at the wrong moment, things like that.

Anyway, just a thought.

[Barthheart]

ORIGINAL: hobbes

As the decision to make use of the computer to change a few things from the boardgame has already been made maybe a few other changes could make it into the PC version. I like the idea of a +1 spotting chance for a unit that was spotted on the previous turn. Hidden units are obviously a big change from the boardgame version - but it seems the unit counters themselves never become hidden again once spotted? Is this the case? (Just starting my second game so not sure about a few things). A bit of a slippery slope though

An enemy unit will again disappear off the map if none of your units have line of sight to the enemy unit.

[midgard30]

ORIGINAL: wodin

OK fair enough. It's the rigidity of it that feels unnatural.Every 5 mins the enemy will disappear. I'd rather have it that the player\AI can put the unit into hide mode(i.e keeping away from windows or dropping behind cover) that would use an action point than them all disappearing every five minutes.

I'm sure the rule could be refined, but it would probably require to rewrite all scenarios (e.g. adding turns). Frankly, since I don't use the spot button anymore (at least as an attacker, and thanks to Barthheart's tactical hints), I find the firefights more dynamics and from my little knowledge on tactics, realistic enough.

I reckon I will get over it..esp if we get more and bigger maps and more units;)

I think you're more like a collector! [;)] And about that: +1

ORIGINAL: markhwalker

Absolutely not. At least not as you are suggesting. As I've said elsewhere, I attended War College shortly after Desert Storm. I drank beer with a lot of combat vets. The idea that they would reveal their position by firing at where they *thought* the enemy *might* be would be laughable to them. Certainly once the enemy is found, they would fix them with suppressive fire, but to semi-randomly fire at suspected locations only reveals your own location.

Mark, I've already got two Decisive victories against the AI (Downtown and Open the door), and I don't consider myself an experienced tactical player. Frankly I'm not sure there is an interest to replay those scenarios, as I would probably have the same approach with more or less the same results. Maybe it's different with a human opponent, and since I'm getting more comfortable with the game, I'll probably start looking for players very soon.

Still, I'm wondering if some game mechanics may not be not suited for large maps (I'm thinking about range of fire that may have been designed for small areas)?

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: wodin

The spotting rule..I hate it. If there could be an option to change the rule so that if a unit has fired then it stays visible at least to the unit it fired at I'd be so happy. AT the moment it just feels very odd and not right at all being unable to fire back.

I can see the rule eventually bugging me so much I move on from the game sadly.

That doesn't always happen just because you are fired at you know where you were fired at from. What about snipers? Hit and Run units? There's so many things that could happen after a shot is fire. There's noway someone would always be visible after firing at someone all the time.

[wodin]

Yeah I know all that..but in game you do see who shot at you..for abit anyway.

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

ORIGINAL: wodin

The spotting rule..I hate it. If there could be an option to change the rule so that if a unit has fired then it stays visible at least to the unit it fired at I'd be so happy. AT the moment it just feels very odd and not right at all being unable to fire back.

I can see the rule eventually bugging me so much I move on from the game sadly.

That doesn't always happen just because you are fired at you know where you were fired at from. What about snipers? Hit and Run units? There's so many things that could happen after a shot is fire. There's noway someone would always be visible after firing at someone all the time.

[z1812]

In terms of this game, and the way it is designed, the spotting rule does not bother me as much as it used to.

I would still like to see area fire implemented. A penalty to the effectiveness of the firing unit could make one wary
of using it. The firing unit would still be spotted if within sight of an opposing unit.

[HobbesACW]

Another slippery slope idea would be to give a chance to rally without a leader if a unit is out of enemy LOS (something that would be a real pain in a boardgame but doable in a PC game). Shaken units just seem so helpless - yet the scenario time frame is pretty short so maybe there is realism in the current rule even though it is frustrating.

Cheers,
Chris

[Gizuria]

This is probably w-a-y too far out of the design philosophy of the game to implement but if you don't ask, you don't get.

How about we can do area fire on a hex which has no actual impact on enemy units that are 'hidden' there at the start of the turn? Instead, an area fire marker is placed on their location and the units therein are only affected by the fire if they choose to fire. The area fire could attack them first before they fired and then the survivors make their attack. The defenders alternative is to move out of the hex with the area fire marker. Our units that made the area fire have of course given up their locations to the other side.