lodilefty wrote:I think that "only" seeing detail on one stack nicely simulates a "screening" situation, where patrols cannot get close to the other stacks.
But having level 5 Detection info on One Corp but not on another doesn't really fit that situation. Perhaps if the Corps had Cav Div or attached Cav units, or anything with a high patrol value i would agree. Besides, isn't it the biggest unit whose info is displayed right now... so its the Corp thats screening the Cav!? If Cav could give a detection "malus" that would be great though.
Also, each region represents a rather large area (hundreds of square miles?), and so a patrol from an adjacent region may never "find" any details on "distant" groups.
True, but if two stacks are in the same region, which often happens, or if you had a high enough detect rating (i.e. an abstraction of Spies, Defectors and Deep Cavalry Patrols) i don't this as being gamey.
..and now, with the advent of aviation , we must also think in terms of how much detail a recon flight can gather beyond "there be dragons here"
Aerial and Signals intelligence should significantly increase your intel picture - like spotting troop concentrations, artillery supply depots or increases in signals/vehicle traffic in the rear. Traditional Cav patrols couldn't stop aerial recce mission making local air supremacy more important.
hehe, I've told some folks that if you want absolute intelligence on the strength, disposition and location of an opponent, perhaps you should consider Chess!!! (just kidding here )
Chief Rudiger wrote:Fundamentally, this engine hides too much beautiful artwork. If i new my drab Red Guards were facing "Colourful" White regiments i might act differently! Added to that, right now all i really know is "his" units are worth 500, but not whether that's 500 rubbish units that will be out of food and wrecked on cohesion if i strategically retreat a bit or whether that 500 is a quality but numerically inferior force which is well provisionned with cohesion bonus units that'll be able to follow me and then easily rout my rabble after one round unless i can get behind some obstacle and get them with ranged units as they approach. See what i'm saying?
Adding this might be too much of a biggie but its something i think the engine needs to do, especially for VGN where you'll be meeting all types of people but not having much of a chance to appreciate zulu tribal piercings before just crunching the numbers with the aid of a gatling gun. Adding something like this might make up a bit for the lack of battlefield control (not something i want, but i know others do) as it will make the series less like a numbers game.
Gray_Lensman wrote:Not a bug. It's been this way since they eliminated Divisional HQ units a few years back and PBEM players like the feature since it helps them with intelligence deception. AGEOD should leave the tooltip as is.
Sent from my Droid X using Swype.
Chief Rudiger wrote:Gray_Lensman/Clovis,
In AACW yours and the enemies divisions were named "1st Division" etc in the tooltips, now they are named after one of the sub units. Clovis, how isn't this a bug?!
(PS. comparison image attached if anyone without AACW wants to look)
I understand the arguement about deception but i don't think the AGE engine is properly modelling it at present. The stronger stack should be hidden not the weaker. This "cloaking"/"shielding" feature could be tied to detect values, especially now you can have a special detect value of 6 using aerial recconaisance!
I think i've made this arguement pretty clearly a few post earlier and similar to my suggestion about a generic infantry replacement element I'd love to see this as an additional feature as an option which can be turned on and off.
For that reason I don't think the additional option set OFF as default, for looking at enemy unit graphics (or even stats, depending on detect value), would effect "a basic and old AGE feature some likes ( I would say many)" or detract from the game in any way. Those that don't like it don't have to turn it on!
If it weren't for the art work i don't think i'd play this series. Is anyone else thinking along the same lines as me?
Nevertheless, guys, if a game's feature is counter-intuitive and goes against common wargame's rules, one may ask if:
a) it's wad
b) it's a bug (an old one, but a bug)
If it's wad, I may disagree with the designer's decision, and would like to hear Pocus word about this. I am not asking for changes in AACW, those times are gone, IMHO. But this manner of referring to Divisions and Brigades in the tooltips is also present in RUS (matbe in RoP, I didn't check) and maybe in PoN, and again IMHO should be revised.
If it's a bug, again, not in AACW, but in the newer games at least it should be corrected.
And please, don't talk to me about deception. FOW exists for this. What is the historical parallel of spotting an enemy brigade and reporting it as a lone general ? What is the use of spotting a Division and reporting the first (not the best, not the biggest, not the most famous, or even the front one) Brigade that the opposing player decided to merge with the Division commander ?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest