mode: conscript to grognard and AI opponent challenge

[Hook]

Here are the options, straight out of the menu, verbatim:

Options
View:  Full, Limited to the chief of army
Visibility:  Unconditional, Marker?, Conditional without delay, Conditional with delay
Friendly visibility:  Unconditional, Conditional
Orders:  Immediate, Delayed
Delay of orders:  Historical, Limited
Interception of orders:  Disabled, Enabled
Orders in 3D view:  Whole map, Local zone
Information:  Precise, Vague
Loss of corps commander:  Enabled, Disabled
Galvanised units:  Enabled, Disabled
Ammunition:  Historical (limited), Unlimited
Mode:  Conscript, Regular, Grognard

If you're not clear on what these mean, check the manual.

Some of these are just fog of war.  Others are difficulty settings.  Additional settings may be added in the future, including settings that aren't related to fog of war.

Now... since it's not JUST fog of war, what do you want to do?

Hook

[Gunner24]

The 3d map needs to show the same level of FoW as each of the different levels show on the 2d map.

Is this possible ?.

[Hook]

The 3d map needs to show the same level of FoW as each of the different levels show on the 2d map.

I couldn't disagree more.

Hook

[Gunner24]

Why is that ?......I thought you wanted to have FoW in the game, why with FoW turned ON can you see all the formations on the 3d map, when you can only see some of them on the 2d map ?.

[Hook]

Gunner24, quoting you from another post:

Agghhhhh, have I missed something here......what we need is a FIXED to ANY friendy unit camera, so you can only see what your friendy troops can see, with no helicopter view, but a view from ANY of your friendy units, just like the fixed to ciC view.

This way you can move from unit to unit along the fromt line a SEE what is happening.

This I agree with.

Hook

[saddletank]

Now... since it's not JUST fog of war, what do you want to do?

The discussion here seems to be solely about the names of the modes I think.

Since I have not seen the demo or manual I was unaware of the other variables in the options.

My understanding is that Nix thinks 'conscript' for a mode name has issues but I feel we have gone over that already and you disgaree so I am not sure what else to suggest.

[Gunner24]

I'm in danger of confusing myself here, but the two statments I made above, that Hook's agrees AND dis-agrees with, are in fact the same thing, I think.....if the 3d map shows the SAME information as the 2d map (as far as FoW is concerned) and you can view the 3d map from any friendy unit, you will only be able to see enemy units that can also be seen on the 2d map - perfect result.

[Hook]

My understanding is that Nix thinks 'conscript' for a mode name has issues but I feel we have gone over that already and you disgaree so I am not sure what else to suggest.

I don't particularly like Conscript either.  Here are two variations that have been used:

Aspirant, General, Commander-in-Chief

Conscript, Regular, Grognard

Suggest a good replacement for Aspirant and we can go with the first set.

Hook

[Hook]

I'm in danger of confusing myself here, but the two statments I made above, that Hook's agrees AND dis-agrees with, are in fact the same thing, I think.....if the 3d map shows the SAME information as the 2d map (as far as FoW is concerned) and you can view the 3d map from any friendy unit, you will only be able to see enemy units that can also be seen on the 2d map - perfect result.

Actually, the 3D map should always show everything.  It's a representation of the real world as portrayed by the game.  No invisible units, no highlighting, just what you'd actually see if you were there.

The reason is, if you're looking through the eyes of a unit on the ground, he will always see some things that the fog of war would consider hidden.  Which is more valid, what the unit can actually see, or what the fog of war thinks he can see?

The problem happens if you're flying around the battlefield in a helicopter.  If you're doing that, you intend to see everything.  In some cases, it would be considered cheating.  Seeing the actual battlefield from the ground level position of a unit isn't cheating, no matter what it shows.  You may prefer to limit the viewpoint to that of the corps commanders.

Hook

[Mooncabbage]

Which is more valid, what the unit can actually see, or what the fog of war thinks he can see?

What the fog of war says he can see. The F3 view no matter how you slice and dice it is generated by the mechanical engine, and so there is a possibility to give the player information they should not have. The simplest and best way to ensure their is no difference between the two views is to make units that should not be visible, not visible.

What you are doing, is creating a situation in which people have to play the game the way you think it should be. There are going to be differences of opinion on this. Some people will want to play with a CiC locked view, and that's great for them. Making the 2d and 3d engines display the same information is not going to seriously affect them.

There is NOTHING wrong with wanting to be able to actually see what's going on on the field. You choose to think of the F3 view as a literal depiction of what the unit sees, and I choose not to. I'm sure there are arguments for both cases, but the fact remains that it's unreasonable to demand that everybody thinks about the game in exactly the same way you do. I'm not telling you you can't play from a CiC locked view, but you are essentially telling me, and gunner, and loads of other people that have been waiting for this game for years, that the way we want to play it is invalid and we should go back to TW.

[Hook]

What you are doing, is creating a situation in which people have to play the game the way you think it should be.

I'd be happy if people would just play the game at all.

Hook

[Mooncabbage]

I feel fairly sure they would, and without any changes to the underlying game mechanics too. Just needs the controls and UI and maybe the graphics shinied up. Probably never appeal to the mainstream but there are plenty of strategy gamers out there who I think would love it. It just has to avoid putting people off before they get into the meat of it.

[Broadsword]

I think some of the arguments and confusion we're seeing over command-and-control of units might be resolved if we had a really good "walkthrough" posted on the forum by one of our most expert playtesters. I know we have the manuals, but I find I learn much faster if I can see, step by step, how a skilled player sets up a battle and gets the troops moving, with lots of screenshots and highlighted notes, etc. I'd do it if I could, but I don't know enough to tackle it.

[nix]

The various options in the options menu can be chosen independently so indeed they allow for a variety of factors other than just fog of war to contribute to different game set ups. However if you choose a pre set mode (Conscript,regular, grognard) the options cannot be choosn independently in that the following options define those modes:

Mode               Conscript                  Regular                   Grognard

View                  Full                             Full                       Limited to CinC
Visability           Unconditional                 Marker                 Cond with delay
(Friendly vis                                                                         Conditional)
Orders                Immediate                   Delay                    Delay
Delay                  Ltd or Hist.                 Ltd or Hist            Ltd or Hist
Intercept               No                               No                        Yes
Orders 3D           whole map                   whole map                local
Info                      Precise                        Precise                   Vague
Loss of comdr      No or Yes                  No or Yes               No or Yes
Galvanise             No or Yes                  No or Yes               No or Yes
Ammo                 Unlim or hist              unlim or hist           unlim or hist

The main difference between the choices of mode is then the amount of information available to the player (or fog of war). So naming the modes : ‘preset fog of war’ and calling the options ‘none’ ‘limited’’ full’ seems logical and avoids the implied battlefield units' fighting ability that the present names carry.

[Hook]

Options
View:  Full, Limited to the chief of army
Visibility:  Unconditional, Marker?, Conditional without delay, Conditional with delay
Friendly visibility:  Unconditional, Conditional
Orders:  Immediate, Delayed
Delay of orders:  Historical, Limited
Interception of orders:  Disabled, Enabled
Orders in 3D view:  Whole map, Local zone
Information:  Precise, Vague
Loss of corps commander:  Enabled, Disabled
Galvanised units:  Enabled, Disabled
Ammunition:  Historical (limited), Unlimited
Mode:  Conscript, Regular, Grognard

Loss of corps commander, Galvanized units and Ammunition have nothing to do with fog of war, Orders immediate or delayed, Delay of orders historical or limited and Interception of orders aren't fog of war although I'm sure someone will argue that.  There may be additional options in the future that do not have anything to do with fog of war.  Given that at least 3 and maybe as many as 6 of the 11 options are not fog of war, how many people are going to complain that we're calling it fog of war rather than difficulty?

So I'll repeat my question from above:

I don't particularly like Conscript either.  Here are two variations that have been used:

Aspirant, General, Commander-in-Chief

Conscript, Regular, Grognard

Suggest a good replacement for Aspirant and we can go with the first set.

Hook