Adjacency and detection?

[Malevolence]

I was surprised by the circumstances in the attached image.

At the start of the player's turn, a friendly unit (the observer) is clearly adjacent to the enemy's city (Baden).

Per the top screenshot, no enemy units are detected inside the city.

Later, the player moves two more friendly units adjacent to the city hex. A stack of unidentified enemy units are now detected inside the city hex.



I understood that "recon level" provided details about enemy units' attributes and capabilities. However, it appeared as if any friendly unit adjacent to an enemy unit would, at a minimum, detect the presence of the enemy.

This case appears to conflict with that observation. Does a city provide a hide bonus? Is the friendly observer's stationary position (at the start of the turn) an element of the failed detection?

Oddly, I would assume a stationary unit would be more likely to detect adjacent enemy units, not less.

[DasTactic]

Every hex has a recon value which depends a lot on the troops you bring into proximity of that hex. Basic troops have a recon value of 1 while buggies have a recon of 5. I think bikers have a recon of 6 which is the highest base number in the game (you can improve recon abilities with tech as well). I always glance at the recon score in the lower right to get some sort of guide as to what I'm seeing. In the screen you are showing I would guess that the recon score would be somewhere below 40. At 40 you start to see basic information about units in a hex such as numbers of units, readiness, entrenchment, etc. This can be wildly innaccurate unless you get the number higher. I like to try and rely on a recon score above 60 but the maximum is 400.
The more innaccurate you tend to be with your recon, the more likely you are to be 'surprised' and results go against you.

[Culthrasa]

I also seen that units are ambushed.. a player walks into a hex, and combat occurs... So having a unit next to a hex is no guarantee that you spot an enemy unit in the adjacent hexes. (lore wise, I believe some YTer stated the hexes are a few hundred kilometers squared, so quite large )

[devoncop]

ORIGINAL: Culthrasa

I also seen that units are ambushed.. a player walks into a hex, and combat occurs... So having a unit next to a hex is no guarantee that you spot an enemy unit in the adjacent hexes. (lore wise, I believe some YTer stated the hexes are a few hundred kilometers squared, so quite large )

Exactly so.

If I remember correctly Custer at Little Big Horn, The British at Isandlwana and many others were all ambushed despite being much closer than hundreds of kilometres from their enemy as their recon was insufficient.

Caution has to be the watchword.

[DasTactic]

Yes, each hex is 200km across. And often the only way of locating an enemy in a hex is to track where you no longer push back on the borders.

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: DasTactic
Yes, each hex is 200km across.

That's an interesting detail to consider overall.

In any event, again, detection is not the same as identification. They are actually at opposite ends of the tracking and targeting spectrum (detect, discriminate, classify, recognize, and identify). At the most basic, detect is something versus nothing.

I've watched units moving into ambushes. I've never seen a unit move into the adjacent hex and be ambushed.

In my opinion, invisible adjacent units call into question zone of control rules (200km hexes and tactical echelons notwithstanding).

It also brings into question the direct and indirect fire rules. Why aren't attacking units required to occupy the target hex? With respect to indirect fire, a modern 155mm Howitzer's range is less than 50km.

A wargame should build a consistent approximation of the above and kill chain. The elements (find, fix, track, target, engage, and assess) can be aggregated and simplified, but consistency needs to hold the model together.