Spotting and Surprise!

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Spotting and Surprise!

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> Spotting and Surprise!

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Spotting and Surprise! - 2/14/2017 1:11:09 AM

sPzAbt653

Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline

Moved this bit from the Oddities Thread.

Screenshot from the stock 1939 Campaign, no moves executed.

Attachment (1)

Post #: 1

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/14/2017 1:11:41 AM

sPzAbt653

Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline

Select the Tank unit and plot it to move to Poznan.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 2

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/14/2017 1:12:54 AM

sPzAbt653

Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline

Tank unit is surprised by Enemy Contact, suffers losses and loses the ability to move further and to make any attacks. [Were the Germans really surprised that the Poznan Army was in Poznan? I'll paraphrase some one else's comment that this type of game mechanic blunts spearheards and discourages blitzkreig tactics. Maybe harsh, but close to true?].

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by sPzAbt653 -- 2/14/2017 1:18:51 AM >

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 3

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/14/2017 1:13:39 AM

sPzAbt653

Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline

Now plot and execute the same Tank unit to move to this hex. The unit stops in this hex, nothing changes.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 4

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/14/2017 1:14:12 AM

sPzAbt653

Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline

However, when movement is ended by de-selecting the unit, the unit Spots.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 5

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/14/2017 1:14:45 AM

sPzAbt653

Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline

Now the unit can move up and attack. Compared to posts 1-3, this doesn't seem to be consistent behavior.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 6

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/14/2017 1:15:30 AM

sPzAbt653

Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline

For a different look, compare this shot to post #1. After this units moves one hex and stops, it spots. Prior to movement it had not even spotted the hexes adjacent. Although non-spotted adjacent hexes aren't always the case, non-moved units never have their full spotting ranges utilized until after they move [the same at sea].

Attachment (1)

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 7

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/14/2017 1:16:05 AM

sPzAbt653

Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline

Each time this unit moves one hex and stops, it spots. If it executes these moves in one bound, no spotting occurs until the movement is ended. Its the same move, with different results.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 8

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/14/2017 1:17:26 AM

sPzAbt653

Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline

Therefore, no matter how good intentioned the current behavior is, the end result is that it forces players to move one hex at a time [Ok, we are not forced to, we just like to do it that way!]. Tedious enough on land, at sea this is a nightmare.

In post #5, the two units that we see at Poznan are what I would expect to see prior to any movement and with FOW ON. With FOW OFF I would expect these two units to be fully revealed. This would, of course, eliminate Surprise Attacks, but that is ok with me as I don't see where they represent anything accurately for this scale of game. Rare are cases during WWII that the presence of enemy armys and corps were completely unknown. Air bases were known, the position of capital ships were most often known. Units should not be completely invisible and also allowed to cause enemy units that come in contact with them to lose steps and all movement. Weren't defenders ever surprised ?

Just my opinion, I could be completely wrong. Love playing this game, hate moving one hex at a time

Attachment (1)

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 9

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/14/2017 7:07:10 AM

Calaf

Posts: 55
Joined: 7/25/2015
Status: offline

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 10

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/14/2017 12:11:27 PM

jhdeerslayer

Posts: 1194
Joined: 5/25/2002
From: Michigan
Status: offline

+1

_____________________________

(in reply to Calaf)

Post #: 11

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/14/2017 12:25:46 PM

TheBattlefield

Posts: 507
Joined: 6/11/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Select the Tank unit and plot it to move to Poznan.

-1

I think I can understand your stomach pain in this area of the game mechanics quite well. But I guess this "problem" has more to do with a seeming contradiction of "expectation of a result" and "visible result" than with an actual weakness of the move mechanics. I feel like you are unconsciously expecting the battalion behavior of an Panzergeneral. But precisely in the movement behavior of the land units and Especially in your example, I see no real problems.

In your example (I mean here an average span of 7 days/turn) you give your tank group in the abstraction of an SC3 following command:

Day 1, Tank Group march to the Hexfeld Poznan and take this strategic goal. Resistance is theoretically possible but an active reconnaissance is deliberately omitted. Attack, where a will is, is also a victory! Results at the end of the first day: Fighting with an existing Polish army, presumably even with the advantage of a "prepared attack" on the side of the opponent. (The expression "surprise" I find here actually somewhat misleading, it is actually rather a calculated risk) So, command has been executed. Target not reached. But: result as expected in the case of a not "empty" city!

In the following, you give a completely different (but at this abstraction level and without renouncing targeted area reconnaissance) very meaningful command: Day 1, armor group move slowly forward, take a safe position and clear from there the environment within your possibilities. Day 2-7, move forward, take an attack position and attack the recognized defenders of the city of Poznan. Command has been (successfully) executet. Goal achieved. Result as expected in the (superior) attack on a defended city.

Now, at my age, I may already be subject to a weakening will to change, but in this area, especially in this example, I still lack a real necessity of an intervention. Ok, the concept of a surprise attack should actually be abandoned as long as there is no active command (with the associated behavioral routines) to prepare a "ambush" for a unit.

What does not mean that there are no "exciters" in the behavior of units in other areas. In the case of the submarines: Prevention of emergency dive through encirclement by naval vessels!)

< Message edited by TheBattlefield -- 2/14/2017 12:28:36 PM >

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 12

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/14/2017 1:26:17 PM

The Land

Posts: 857
Joined: 2/19/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield

In the following, you give a completely different (but at this abstraction level and without renouncing targeted area reconnaissance) very meaningful command: Day 1, armor group move slowly forward, take a safe position and clear from there the environment within your possibilities. Day 2-7, move forward, take an attack position and attack the recognized defenders of the city of Poznan. Command has been (successfully) executet. Goal achieved. Result as expected in the (superior) attack on a defended city.

It's still a design problem though.

The player faces no actual tradeoff or decision to make except whether to spend more of their (out-of-game) time moving the unit hex by hex, or whether to do the obvious thing the interface wants you to, and then accept the risk of suboptimal results.

That's sloppy game design.

(in reply to TheBattlefield)

Post #: 13

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/14/2017 2:05:28 PM

TheBattlefield

Posts: 507
Joined: 6/11/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Land

It's still a design problem though.

That's sloppy game design.

Your desire for a different game mechanics may have its reasons. But I would rather not comment on your conclusion here. Too bad.

(in reply to The Land)

Post #: 14

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/14/2017 2:10:02 PM

Seminole

Posts: 2105
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Land

The player faces no actual tradeoff or decision to make except whether to spend more of their (out-of-game) time moving the unit hex by hex, or whether to do the obvious thing the interface wants you to, and then accept the risk of suboptimal results.

I'm in this camp as well. Because it can be obviated by tedium (with no other trade off with respect distance unit can travel, etc) it doesn't make much sense to me. Basically a penalty to the AI against a 'patient' player.

(in reply to The Land)

Post #: 15

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/14/2017 3:35:42 PM

sPzAbt653

Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline

quote:

an average span of 7 days/turn ... Results at the end of the first day: Fighting with an existing Polish army

I think this actually supports my position on the matter, because doesn't this mean that for days 2 thru 7 the attacking tank unit sits and does nothing?

quote:

in this example, I still lack a real necessity of an intervention.

No problem there, this is why I took the time to post all this, because I would like to know what others think. Thank you for taking the time to post about it, although I am still not convinced [but we do have a bit of a language barrier as I don't quite understand all of your points

]

(in reply to TheBattlefield)

Post #: 16

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/14/2017 3:46:13 PM

sPzAbt653

Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline

quote:

The player faces no actual tradeoff or decision to make except whether to spend more of their (out-of-game) time moving the unit hex by hex, or whether to do the obvious thing the interface wants you to, and then accept the risk of suboptimal results.

Well put !

quote:

That's sloppy game design.

I know what you mean but that sounds kind of harsh. During five months of beta testing I can certify that nothing sloppy was going on. The developers are tight, knowledgeable, and very responsive to issues. During that time this 'surprise' mechanic did come up a couple of times but none of us [beta testers] pressed the issue as it is be presented here. So I would conclude that the developers may likely take the position of Mr. Battlefield, and consider the position of those new to the system as possibly condemning a mechanic that is not fully understood. If this is the case then this is actually anti-sloppy behavior, as we don't want changes made on whims.

(in reply to The Land)

Post #: 17

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/14/2017 3:48:08 PM

wie201

Posts: 793
Joined: 11/9/2002
From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Status: offline

The "surprise" factor I think works very well in one area, and that is being surprised by a submarine. In a head-to-head match up a British Light Cruiser took 7 steps of damage when it ran into a U-Boat. In another game a U-Boat caused 6 points of damage on a light cruiser and sunk it. In this context, even though I was the Allied player, I liked the effect the game engine had.

As to whether an Army with, I assume, attached recon sections, can be ambushed by another Army, in a city no less, well, maybe it should at least be able to attack its ambusher.

(in reply to Seminole)

Post #: 18

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/14/2017 3:49:43 PM

sPzAbt653

Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline

quote:

it can be obviated by tedium (with no other trade off with respect distance unit can travel

Indeed ! But most often I find that the unit can travel the same distance. However, I am not advocating any penalties for moving one hex at a time [this is merely a solution to the matter]. What I am advocating is a change to the FOW mechanics.

(in reply to Seminole)

Post #: 19

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/14/2017 3:58:41 PM

sPzAbt653

Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline

quote:

Basically a penalty to the AI against a 'patient' player.

Thanks for mentioning this, as it is no small penalty and could maybe be a possible balance issue. The computer doesn't move one hex at a time and is therefore more susceptible to surprise losses than the human. Again, I am not advocating changing movement rules, it's the FOW that I disagree with.

(in reply to Seminole)

Post #: 20

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/14/2017 4:02:53 PM

sPzAbt653

Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline

quote:

being surprised by a submarine

Thank you, I hadn't mentioned in this thread that Subs are different. Subs are truly 'ambush' attackers and need to be treated that way.

(in reply to wie201)

Post #: 21

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/14/2017 4:55:33 PM

TheBattlefield

Posts: 507
Joined: 6/11/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

...but we do have a bit of a language barrier as I don't quite understand all of your points ]

You need to read my French, that is even worse than my English! SIPRES already has tears in his eyes...

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 22

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/18/2017 1:56:09 AM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

Thanks for the feedback everyone and to clarify the movement and spotting rules from the top posts, you can't actually move 1 hex at a time and fully spot (although at first glance it may seem that this is exactly what is happening).

The movement and spotting rules currently work like the following:

1) a full move, i.e. maximum AP will result in the final movement position ending with full spotting to the maximum spotting range a land unit is capable of. In this case most land units (if not all) are set to spot 2 hexes.

2) a partial move, i.e. not to the full extent of capable AP for that unit will also result in full spotting up to that partially moved position.

3) subsequent moves after the partial move result in only 1 hex of spotting for any additional 1 hex at a time movements

* * *

The framework of these rules achieve the following in game results:

a) The result of 1) can result in a unit surprised along its movement path, either halfway through or right up to the end of its movement path in a surprise encounter with an enemy. The reason for this is that no recon has been performed along this path. The top post of the tank moving from its at start position to Poznan is an example of this.

b) Performing a partial move as described in 2) could be considered a "recon move" and can be useful in making a move let's say up to 2 hexes outside of Poznan to see if there are enemy units located there before proceeding. This works whether you deselect the unit and then reselect it after a partial move, or if you were to make a partial move, not undo the move and then decide to move along a bit further towards Poznan. The subsequent post showing the Tank unit initially moving within 2 hexes of Poznan and then continuing towards Poznan and not getting surprised shows this rule in action.

c) Performing a partial move and then subsequently moving several more hexes, i.e. 1 at a time, as described in 3) would result in a surprise encounter with a hidden enemy unit along the path as each subsequently moved hex has a reduced spotting of only 1. An example of this would be to move the Tank unit 1 hex at a time towards Poznan and you would end with a resulting surprise encounter. Even performing an initial partial move that leaves the Tank unit 3 hexes outside of Poznan on its first move, and then moving 1 hex at a time would also result in a surprise encounter as the first partial move left Poznan outside of the spotting range of 2 for the Tank unit.

* * *

The idea behind this rule set was to eliminate the 1 hex at a time spotting exploit that we also recognized during development, but to also have something that worked with the new dynamic movement opportunities that this latest game offers which didn't exist in our old games. For example in the past there was no opportunity to perform a "recon move" as described in 2) before continuing on to your final objective and now that opportunity exists.

Granted this does not necessarily mean the current implementation is perfect and not necessarily in need of possible changes, something we will discuss internally based on this type of feedback, I just wanted to hopefully clarify the rules and implementation as they currently exist in game to hopefully paint a better picture of what was actually happening from the various observations.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

(in reply to TheBattlefield)

Post #: 23

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/19/2017 6:14:23 AM

sPzAbt653

Posts: 9511
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline

In the Feedback category, hopefully constructive: This all seems way too complex for a Strategic game with hexes that are 20 miles across.
The new Dynamic Movement is a great feature [which hasn't been hailed enough], but to retain spotting and surprise diminishes it. It would seem more appropriate to have movement penalties for entering enemy an ZOC and for conducting attacks.

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 24

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/19/2017 11:45:46 AM

Yogol

Posts: 199
Joined: 11/30/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

[Were the Germans really surprised that the Poznan Army was in Poznan?].

That's up to you to decide...

If you want the Germans to be surprised, play with Fog Of War on.
If you don't, then turn it off.

It seems perfectly logical that you can have these kind of surprise encounters when you decided to play with FOW on.

To me, the game does this feature just fine. There is no one-step-micro-managing nor unrealistic full-knowledge.

< Message edited by Yogol -- 2/19/2017 11:49:15 AM >

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 25

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/19/2017 3:05:11 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

In the Feedback category, hopefully constructive: This all seems way too complex for a Strategic game with hexes that are 20 miles across.
The new Dynamic Movement is a great feature [which hasn't been hailed enough], but to retain spotting and surprise diminishes it. It would seem more appropriate to have movement penalties for entering enemy an ZOC and for conducting attacks.

I can see at first glance how it can seem quite complex and really it is just an careful implementation (with a long winded explanation above) to avoid the 1 hex at a time exploit that we recognized during development. Other than that it works as it did in previous versions of SC with one additional consideration in place (the recon move) to handle dynamic movement as well.

On the surprise encounters, personally I can see how there is an argument to be made that the Germans might anticipate the unit disposition around Poznan on turn one, but this is a general rule and not every situation will be similar to Poznan as the game moves forward.

Additionally it is not always a guarantee that a surprise encounter will result in the defender attacking first.

While we do give a bit of an ambush bonus for the hidden defender, there will be times that even despite this bonus the surprise encounter can still end with your option to attack (or not) as the "attacker" if the numbers are in your favor.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 26

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/19/2017 7:01:21 PM

The Land

Posts: 857
Joined: 2/19/2010
Status: offline

Interesting post, thanks Hubert. Didn't appreciate that initial vs subsequent movement was treated differently "under the hood". So in StPz's original example, his 2nd method is actually optimal for an objective of Poznan, but not if his objective is something past Poznan.

I still feel this is a bit strange in terms of player experience, as there's nothing that leads a player to view their initial movement with a unit as any different from the rest of their movement with the same unit. After all it is not like anything else has happened in the game, or the game is telling them to expect anything different to happen. Could do with stronger signposting in the interface somehow (do you need to account for "recons" as a separate number like "strikes?)

In any case, I'd still question whether "surprise" is really an appropriate concept in a corps-level game. I am struggling to think of occasions when corps-level land units were actually surprised while on the offensive in 20th-century warfare, and failing. Surprise really is something that belongs to the attacker rather than the defender - in the example with the Poznan Army above, it would probably be the Poznan Army that was surprised by the sudden appearance of a panzer army so quickly?

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 27

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/19/2017 8:59:37 PM

gravyface_

Posts: 148
Joined: 4/21/2007
Status: offline

I just want the surprise hex to be the actual hex the enemy unit is in, not the hex that's adjacent to it. Getting tired of moving next to a city and taking surprise damage.

(in reply to The Land)

Post #: 28

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/19/2017 9:30:36 PM

vonRocko

Posts: 1447
Joined: 11/4/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gravyface_

I just want the surprise hex to be the actual hex the enemy unit is in, not the hex that's adjacent to it. Getting tired of moving next to a city and taking surprise damage.

+1 Yes.

(in reply to gravyface_)

Post #: 29

RE: Spotting and Surprise! - 2/19/2017 9:33:48 PM

The Land

Posts: 857
Joined: 2/19/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

That's sloppy game design.

I know what you mean but that sounds kind of harsh. During five months of beta testing I can certify that nothing sloppy was going on. The developers are tight, knowledgeable, and very responsive to issues.

Just wanted to clarify that "sloppy" only referred to this particular point - on which it turns out I was wrong in any case, as there is in fact a tradeoff for the player. (I still think it could work better, but my initial post didn't have the correct facts to support it)

I do appreciate the challenges involved in this kind of design scenario and generally I'm pretty impressed by the game, and also by the devs' presence in the forums talking about things :)

(in reply to sPzAbt653)

Post #: 30