Matrix Games Forums

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.

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.

This... I actually gave up the game after trying the first scenario in the German campaign and failing about ten spotting rolls in a roll against units that I had already fired on--meaning I could either just sit there or use one of my handful of units to "draw fire".

In my view this mechanic is neither realistic nor fun.

Between the spotting rules, the tiny maps (no maneuver possible), and small number of turns (little chance to overcome bad rolls), I felt that the scenarios were less an exercise in tactics than an exercise in rolling dice.

I agree the turns limits are too restrictive aswell..

when I played the board game version I certainly found the dice rolling a pain, despite the promise of 'less gumpf' or somefink.

First of all let me say I really like the game, very immerse...

3 things that I would like to see tweaked..

1. I would like to be able to be able to drag and modify movement paths, sometimes when you move a unit the movement path moves through clear ground when there are more covered routes available...

2. I would like a couple of more turns added to each scenario, they are not enough turns to try any different tactics..

3. spotting doesn't feel right, maybe modify the spotting system so that a unit can see the unit that fired on it for the next turn.

I almost always right click one hex at a time when I'm moving units. The game allows you to pick your own path that way, until you use up the unit's movement allowance.

I believe playing at Introductory level gives you a few more turns than the Normal level, if that helps.

ORIGINAL: RockKahn

I almost always right click one hex at a time when I'm moving units. The game allows you to pick your own path that way, until you use up the unit's movement allowance.

....

This. I always move one hex at a time when there's the possibility to get shot at. I use the plotted movement path to get an idea of how far/many movement points my destination is but still move one hex at a time.

For me, I've always liked the spotting rule and the limited number of turns. Both of these combined to make the game fast and entertaining. I always found ASL to be too much everyone sitting in big stacks blasting away until some one killed or broke more of the enemy then they moved... not really action packed... to me.

LnL has always been about making scenarios that are fast paced and very movie like actions. It's also always been about small unit actions, platoons vs platoons with a couple of tanks maybe as support.

All of the current scenarios have been balanced for the number of turns they have. Just arbitrarily increasing the number of turns would make them too easy to win.

Making new scenarios, you can have maps that are 45 hexes wide by 30 hexes tall, which is probably enough room for a couple of companies on each side to duke it out. These games would probably be longer in turns and offer more maneuver room.

As for the sighting, I like it the way it is but that's because I've been playing the system for almost 10 years. Maybe Mark will alter the PC game a bit.... it might be interesting to try having fired units easier to spot in the next turn...

Ok thanks I will try that, I am loving the game by the way..

Oh and you know you can click the mouse button to skip the dice rolls

It did occur to me that making units visible all the time might unbalance the game, maybe like you say..giving a spotting bonus against a unit that has recently fired would be a good middle ground..

As for the number of turns, If it would ruin scenario balance.. maybe its best to leave them alone..

ORIGINAL: highlandcharge

Ok thanks I will try that, I am loving the game by the way..

Oh and you know you can click the mouse button to skip the dice rolls

You can go into the options and turn the dice rolls off completely. [8D]

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.

This rule is an abstraction. It's a good way of simulating fog of war in a board game. I guess the idea is that units don't stay spotted. Maybe they moved to a different place in the same hex? That they all become unspotted at the same time (when the turn ends) is a neccessary abstraction in a board game. A computer game could do things differently, but I'm glad this game stayed true to the board game. My biggest problem with Conflict of Heroes is that it took them so long to implement the action point system the way it is in the board game (I'm assuming they have fixed it now, but I haven't tried it for a long time).

Are you sure you like board games? Because I think there is very little gameyness to this game, compared to most board games. If you feel things are gamey in this game, you might want to avoid board game adaptations.

Would it be difficult to change the turn number in the editor?

ORIGINAL: z1812

Would it be difficult to change the turn number in the editor?

Shouldn't be....

I've just got my first decisive victory at hard (Downtown) and I must say, the more I play this game the more I like it. The spotting rule disturbs me less than I would thought. In fact, I never used the spot function, but I used baits as much as necessary. I had less casualties than expected, and my other units could fire back, move for melee or manoeuvre around. I don't know if it's realist, but I guess in the end, an attacker has no choice than launching assaults...?

My concern is more about small scenarios (1 or 2 maps). I don't think they have a big replay value, at least against the AI. I believe that once you have done it, further success will depend more on dice rolling (opinion from experienced players would be appreciated).

ORIGINAL: oivind22
It's a good way of simulating fog of war in a board game.

but I'm glad this game stayed true to the board game.

I agree totally to both statements. But you say also:

A computer game could do things differently

I think I have read earlier Mark saying that the rule system was not very good for big maps. For a boardgame, very probably. But the strong point of PC is that the player don't have to care about a lot of details: dice rolling (there could be a lot, especially with OFT units), calculations, checking/replacing the tokens, figuring LOS, etc., etc.

And while I don't like too many different sets of rules, especially optional ones (I believe that all players should always play with the same rules), I think I would like two sets of fixed rules. One for the boardgame, one for the PC. The boardgame rules would be exactly as the original ones. The PC set would have those are already implemented (to my knowledge): flanking fire, hidden, hide in place, with the addition of an improved spotting rules, other nice ideas. Some scenarios could come from the original boardgame as they are tested and balanced, others could be especially designed for PC rules (or both) and with more than one or two maps.

While I think the LnL system is really good, I believe that this game could benefit the power of a computer.
But from what I read here and there, I don't think Mark is keen upon changing its system even for the PC. And I can understand why: with years, the system proved its worth, and players like it. Also, my understanding is creating the PC game was a lot of involvement and changing rules would have much implication on scenarios' balance, among other things. So I supposed it's not gonna happen.

Changing the rule for the PC game is pointless (unless it is a problem induced by the PC adaptation). There are a lot of other game design for the PC. PC lock and load has a reason to exist if it is the same as the boardgame. Lock and load is simple. If you want a very good squad game you can include lots more in a PC game (like Steel Panther for example).

So any real change of rule must mean a change of the boardgame rules too. We should keep that in mind.

ORIGINAL: macob30
I think I have read earlier Mark saying that the rule system was not very good for big maps. For a boardgame, very probably. But the strong point of PC is that the player don't have to care about a lot of details: dice rolling (there could be a lot, especially with OFT units), calculations, checking/replacing the tokens, figuring LOS, etc., etc.

And while I don't like too many different sets of rules, especially optional ones (I believe that all players should always play with the same rules), I think I would like two sets of fixed rules. One for the boardgame, one for the PC. The boardgame rules would be exactly as the original ones. The PC set would have those are already implemented (to my knowledge): flanking fire, hidden, hide in place, with the addition of an improved spotting rules, other nice ideas. Some scenarios could come from the original boardgame as they are tested and balanced, others could be especially designed for PC rules (or both) and with more than one or two maps.

While I think the LnL system is really good, I believe that this game could benefit the power of a computer.
But from what I read here and there, I don't think Mark is keen upon changing its system even for the PC. And I can understand why: with years, the system proved its worth, and players like it. Also, my understanding is creating the PC game was a lot of involvement and changing rules would have much implication on scenarios' balance, among other things. So I supposed it's not gonna happen.

I agree. I like taking advantage of the computer, as long as they don't change the flow of the system. Flanking fire was a good idea. It's just a new modifier, that would be difficult to keep track of in the board game. But it's still the same game.

It strikes me that many folks who don't like the spotting rule don't seem to be playing correctly. That isn't meant as a criticism of your skill as a tactician, but rather a comment on how the game was meant to be played and, to a lesser degree, how small unit tactics work. Between the board game and the computer game I'd say it is safe to say that I have played over 1000 games of LnL. I have NEVER, as in never ever, tried ten spotting rolls in a game. Furthermore, I'd say that in 25-30% of the scenarios I play I never attempt to spot a single time. There are more efficient ways to draw fire/spot units and I've discussed them elsewhere, but in short. In order of preference.

1. Move units, in cover, and hope to draw fire.
2. Move adjacent to a unit that you wish to spot. Yes, you probably will take casualties.
3. Wait for the other units to fire.
4. Attempt to spot.

But isn't suppressive fire a staple of small unit tactics? Something you can't do in the game.

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

suppressive fire

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.

I thought a unit being shaken was also meant to mean they were suppressed as well because when they are shaken they cant fire... I am 4 missions into the German campaign and I really like the game system, its logical and I find I am using real world tactics to beat the scenarios