Oddities

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I feel that the real culprit is the Fog of War, which completely hides most units normally unless they are adjacent, which doesn't seem proper for a strategic game at this scale.

As much as I can understand your position, the depths of intervention of a FOW remains more than just a question of taste, even in strategic games, which are supposed to portray a modern warfare. I personally would find a basic exposure of troops positions on the global map and a reduced fog of the war only to the unit strength and the unit names rather boring. As a result, many strategic/tactical game variants are abandoned without need and are almost inevitably a certain chess feeling. If someone like to play strategy chess, he can also disable the FOW at all. I remember past campaigns of the first SC games, which often started to annoy me when the enemy aircraft carriers had turned into passive satellite reconnaissance by research, and you had play on practically without FOW. My first mod contained a drastic reduction of the passive reconnaissance ranges of air units. But, all just a personal impression.

Actually helpful and probably also strategically meaningful could be a background routine, which work according to the old principle: If you do not want the enemy to know your positions, keep moving! So a (abstracted) gradually passive reconnaissance, which varies with the length of stay in a position. There would be no surprising encounters for such "garrison-like" units.

[8D]

[bobarossa]

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Not really, it takes too long to type and I've said it all before in other posts. But as you ask, I will give a little. Move one hex at a time and after each unit moves it 're-spots', revealing enemy units nearby. Moving two hexes at a time there is no spotting from the first hex, only from the second hex when movement has ended. This isn't logical, and I end up playing by moving each unit one hex at a time, land and naval units. It's tedious and unnecessary.

Just to clarify that it's based not on how far you move, but when you commit a move, so it will re-spot after the first commitment, but not after any subsequent ones.

So if your unit charges off into the hinterland without any prior reconnaissance then it may well collide with a previously unspotted unit. But a more cautious advance, or one that follows a reconnoitered route, won't do so.

And yet I've tried to move a unit multiple hexes and it chose a path that went through unspotted enemy hexes instead of the ones I owned. It got surprised and damaged. It shouldn't work that way.

[Patrat]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Move one hex at a time and after each unit moves it 're-spots', revealing enemy units nearby. Moving two hexes at a time there is no spotting from the first hex, only from the second hex when movement has ended. This isn't logical, and I end up playing by moving each unit one hex at a time, land and naval units. It's tedious and unnecessary.

I agree it is a little tedious having to move units one at a time to avoid being surprised. And it doesn't make a lot of sense that moving your unit one hex at a time is superior to moving multiple hexs, its the same move so why make it tedious?

That being said, I got to say I love the fact that you can be surprised and have no problem with paying a high price if I'm dumb enough to advance without recon. It's like that in real life, even at the high level of strategy this game represents. I just think it shouldn't make a difference whether you move one hex at a time or 4 hexes.

I'm not sure what the solution is, or even if there is one. I guess its a case of I want my cake and eat it too.

[crispy131313]

One thing which is not mentioned is even when you are certain that you may be "surprised" it is sometimes to your benefit to just march into battle to gain the extra hex in which you wood not have gained by spotting one hex at a time due to movement rules. So there is a trade off by moving multiple hexes at a time.

[bobarossa]

This is a strategic level game with corps and armies. I'm sure both of those size units have integral recon that should prevent this stuff. The rational thing would be to create two movement speeds where you can move faster without recon occurring (sort of a strategic movement without rails) and 'advance to contact' movement where recon is constantly occurring. I'm sure I've seen this in other games.

[sPzAbt653]

If someone like to play strategy chess, he can also disable the FOW at all.

Both good true points, maybe I am desiring strategy chess without realizing it. I have also played some games with FOW OFF, and while I feel it is better than FOG ON, I don't feel it is necessary to know everything.

it doesn't make a lot of sense that moving your unit one hex at a time is superior to moving multiple hexes, its the same move so why make it tedious?

Thank you !

The rational thing would be to create two movement speeds

We already have that - select a unit then left click on it

I have more respect for Bill and The Battlefield than I do for my own opinions/views based on their years of experience with SC. I have not yet been here a year! However, I still feel this needs a little more looking at, so I will move it to a separate thread.

[bobarossa]

Except the second speed is forced march and hurts morale. Let's call it three speeds then.

[gravyface_]

I think some are missing my original point and that is, the surprise event happens when moving into an adjacent hex to an enemy unit, not the hex that the enemy unit occupies. This to me is the oddity, as it goes against conventional mechanics that we've been playing with for years, with no complaint (at least not that I've heard).

[Hubert Cater]

I've made a bit of an explanatory post behind some of the rules and reasons of what we currently have in game in this thread:

tm.asp?m=4235840&mpage=1&key=&#4238462