johndoesecond -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (1/6/2011 1:00:21 PM)
|
Hi all, I also think the whole visibility/LOS/recon modelling and doctrine is worth being discussed, and is an area of the game which may be improved. 1. For one thing, I think that some level of abstraction is needed, and I believe that it would be in the spirit of the game to implement it by employing the same "BftB uncertainty principle" (i.e. you see the unit icon, you know its footprint which is dynamic, but you don't know where exactly individual sub-coy entities (soldiers and vehicles) are). So, therefore, my proposal would be: how about having a second footprint for recon and visibility/LOS calculations? Just as the current footprint, the size (and facing) of that footprint would be dynamic, and could, say, extend (concentrically or facing-wise) bigger the longer units stay in defending position (or just applying entrrenchment levels). This looks to me viable also in terms of not having to overwhelm the player with additional recon units or options to control and micro-management, and may be done at a reasonable computational costs (which rightly worries Dave). 2. In the same time, it would be very useful to know how exactly these things worked in the real world and doctrine-wise. So, yes, all this is "food for thought" as Dave says, but it's also food for historical research. Does anyone have some idea or references about this? 3. I also like the idea of air recon. Again, to get and model it right, it would be very useful to learn how it worked in the real (frequency, covered areas, time delay from actual spotting to intel being passed to the commanders on the ground, precision, reliability, etc.) 4. Oh, one question for Dave: currently, does the LOS/visibility calculations take into account unit's footprint, or is it simply calculated from the precise spot the unit's icon? Or is it irrelevant, given the 100m fidelity of the underlying map grid? Thank you for your attention.
|
|
|
|