Air Power Should Prevent Arial Recon

[Edwin P.]

Liam - Russians flooded the skies to prevent the Luftwaffe seeing their rear Reserves, and it may have changed the outcome of that battle and the length of the war.

Liam brings up an important feature of Air Units - the ability to deny enemy units recon over friendly territory.

Perhaps, enemy air units shouldn't be able to spot units adjacent to a friendly air unit assigned that has not attacked or intercepted an air unit that turn.

[Liam]

Just watching a show on the Battle of Britian, hidden files, showing a 3-D image of the battlefield. The German's had a good image of many English Airfields, however, over ten thousand feet some of the disguised airfields were invisible to highflying Recon Aircraft and missed. It's hard to get a decent picture of things without absolute Air Superiority. Spotting Range should be reduced via Strength Points mantained with an an area of operation.. This may not be easily implemented, perhaps spotting range could be reduced though say when a Fighter is below 6 or 7? By 1, then between 5 and 4 by 2...any futher diminished all the way? Reflecting air superiorty

[Moonslayer]

I suggest that air units be given a recon strength equal to their unit strength. This recon strength should drop by one for each tile away from the air unit's current position. So for a full strength air unit with a spotting range of 5 it's relative recon strength for each tile would be:

55555555555

56666666665

56777777765

56788888765

56789998765

56789X98765

56789998765

56788888765

56777777765

56666666665

55555555555

Any nearby enemy airfleet would reduce the recon strength of the original airfleet by the enemy's recon strength (and vice versa).

eg. An enemy airfleet located just to the south east of our airfleet in the first example would modify our air fleet's recon value like this:

55555555555

56666666665

56777777765

56788888765

56789998765

56789X98765

56789998765

56788833210

56777721100

56666610000

55555500000

Any tile where the air unit's recon strength falls below '1' remains enshrouded in the fog of war.

Just an idea!

[Baron]

I propose an easier way to reflect this:

9-10 strenght = 5 squares (full sighting)

7-8 strength = 4 squares

5-6 strength = 3 squares

3-4 strength = 2 squares

As always a unit would be able to see adjacent units.

11-12 strength = 6 squares

13-14 strength = 7 squares

It would be nice to see these ranges increased by 1 square for every advance in long range air also.

[Edwin P.]

I like these two ideas as they both take into account the strength of the air unit doing the recon.

I wonder what the game designer thinks.

[Edwin P.]

As for me, I would use Moonslayer's idea as it nicely balances the effect of friendly and enemy aiur units and perhaps; just perhaps, add Intel to the strength of each air unit's recon rating.

Why? For the defending side it reflects the construction of dummy units and hiding actual units. For the friendly side it reflects better Intel.

Thus Intel 1 allows you to better conceal friendly units or to better spot interpret the meaning of enemy air units in an area.

[ November 12, 2006, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Moonslayer]

Nice addition Edwin... I hadn't even considered that!

[Retributar]

Greeeaaaattt!!!...and 'Bloody-Wonderful-Ideas'!...let's see some of this mind-boggling-think-tank work go into effect!.

[SeaMonkey]

I'm for anything that will enhance the lesser used parameters of this game, compelling the players to deal with more of the dilemma of their choices.

Intel is one of those and spotting is a great way to increase its prowess. I would propose that intel would adjust a spotting factor for each tile. It could be a random percentage based upon the intel advantage or it could be an addition to the spotting factor of a tile.

If each unit in the game exerted a factor of disclosure based on its type, strength and proximity then it would be up to the game engine to crunch the numbers to decide whether the location is revealed.

This is what computing power is for. As players, we just need to have a clear understanding of the spotting mechanics.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Baron:

I propose an easier way to reflect this:

9-10 strenght = 5 squares (full sighting)

7-8 strength = 4 squares

5-6 strength = 3 squares

3-4 strength = 2 squares

As always a unit would be able to see adjacent units.

11-12 strength = 6 squares

13-14 strength = 7 squares

It would be nice to see these ranges increased by 1 square for every advance in long range air also.

Umm, why would an increase in strength lead to an increase in range?

[Bromley]

It's a way of modelling air superiority. IMO flawed in SC2 terms because you can upgrade a STR1 unit to STR10 in one turn and because you take no losses whilst reconning.

Still, I haven't got a better counter suggestion. It does have the virtue of being SC2-simple.

[Lars]

Well, I don't think it follows that just because you've added more planes, they suddenly fly farther.

Moonslayer's idea is interesting though. Would get you into the whole "cones of darkness" deal. And the alert player would note that when units suddenly drop off his screen, that a powerful air unit has just shown up. I'll leave better heads to figure out all the math of when it's 2 or 3 AF's or Bombers against 1 and the strength/spotting ratios for each.

However, I'd like the option to send a AF or Bomber to a specific tile, just for the recon purpose. Right now, you can't attack an empty tile.

[Bromley]

It's not really a range thing. It's more that you have more planes so they are able to survive better and therefore cover a greater area (although there are loads of holes in the logic there).

As I said, flawed. Thinking more about it, I also personally prefer Moonslayer's as both options would need overlays (and if you're simplifying the viewing to the user with an overlay, then you might as well have a sphere of inflence model).

[Capt Andrew]

I like the idea too, but not for the default campaign. To me, this falls into another of the great tech (INTEL!) ideas - Edwin could probably list about 20 of them.

It almost sounds like it would be beneficial to have a moddable tech script, where the effects and benefits from a single technology area could be tinkered with. For example, a non-default technology called "Enhanced Fog Of War". Advances in FOW Tech could improve spotting distance, allow random spotting of naval movement, focus in on location of enemy aircraft carriers launch positions, announce new units built, etc. Instead of making all these changes to one existing technology, ie - Intel, perhaps having that one technology that can be modded would help. It might also add some real flavor to some user created mods out there!

Just my $.02. HC - Is it "doable", or is it a pipe dream?

[Edwin P.]

First, I really like Moonslayer's idea as it directly links the strength of an Air unit to its ability to conduct recon to the strength of enemy air activity in a region.

Second, why not break intel ito two techs - Humit and Signet?

Humit: Affects Diplomacy, Research and Partisan Activity

Signit: Affects Random Spotting of Enemy Land and Naval Units based on radio intercepts

[Retributar]

Keep those idea's rolling, and we need to start implementing a few more of them!.

Do we want the best game we can ever have?, isnt that what we want here?.

There's been a truck-load of idea's at this forum, so then more of them as can be, need to be tried out!. We want this game to stand in the 'Hall of Fame!, for it's own vindication and our own satisfaction!.'.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Bromley:

It's not really a range thing. It's more that you have more planes so they are able to survive better and therefore cover a greater area (although there are loads of holes in the logic there).

As I said, flawed. Thinking more about it, I also personally prefer Moonslayer's as both options would need overlays (and if you're simplifying the viewing to the user with an overlay, then you might as well have a sphere of inflence model).

Ok, got ya.

In that case, looking at Moonslayer's grid, I'd start upping the spotting percentages for an overstrength unit to reflect the increased number of planes. Make sense to me.

[Edwin P.]

Lars, excellent refinement.

At Distance 5 and Strength 10 then Spotting Strength is 5 (Strength Less Distance)

At Distance 5 and Strength 12 then Spotting Strength is 7 (Strength less Distance)

Reinforces the importance of moving units under cover of air power for maximum surprise.

[Baron]

Lars,

I too like the refinement. I'd also like to see the intel help out. If your intel level is 2 and the enemy units is 1 then you'd get something like this:

At distance 5 and strength 12 then spotting strength would be 12-5=7 +1 (2 intel - 1 intel =1) = 8.

I like to keep things simple. The older I get the more I like simple things As to your earlier question about Strength relating to range - err I think I might have been having a brain fart...

[SeaMonkey]

I would also like to see some spotting ajdustment due to terrain. Like swamps and forest -2 and mountainous -1. This is where a lead in intel tech could negate the penalty, ie."eyes on the ground".

I also would like ground units to have only a spotting range of one(adjacent tiles only), increasing the importance of air recon and possibly the intel bonus. At 50 miles per tile gamescale, I think this makes more sense.

[Moonslayer]

Lars your idea is a good one... in fact in my own mind then the extra recon ability of overstrength units was a given; except I never actually made this explicit.

Terrain effects and Intel adjustments are also good.

Whilst I am on the subject I also should mention that weather will obviously affect recon as the planes simply don't fly as far in poor weather (I assumed this would be taken as read in my original post too but similarly failed to actually state this)

[Edwin P.]

I wonder what Hubert; the game designer thinks of this?

SeaMonkey, your idea of reducing the spotting range of ground units makes a lot of sense, while adding immensely to the FOW and making Intel and the use of air units for spotting a lot more important.

[SeaMonkey]

Thanks Edwin, you're obviously a catalyst for a lot of these, take a deserved bow.

It was understood Moonslayer, and your model is right on.

Let's face it, in WW2 knowing the location of your opponents deployments was a dubious proposition, info was very sketchy and technology rudimentary at best.

Therefor in the interest of reality, I must line up on the side of widespread FoW, a perennial advocate of "The Search".

Remember the original players did not have our benefit of hindsight, so we must push the envelope to somewhat capture that aura of the unknown.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Moonslayer:

Lars your idea is a good one... in fact in my own mind then the extra recon ability of overstrength units was a given; except I never actually made this explicit.

Terrain effects and Intel adjustments are also good.

Whilst I am on the subject I also should mention that weather will obviously affect recon as the planes simply don't fly as far in poor weather (I assumed this would be taken as read in my original post too but similarly failed to actually state this)

Oh, they fly just as far, you just don't see squat. Ask my dad about 14 hour recon flights out of the Aleutians. Hell, they never even saw the runway sometimes. All on instruments. Had to have a truck come out and lead them back to the hangers.

Never noticed they were two hours into Russia once either, but that's a different story.

I'm kinda liking where this is going though. Gonna make a winter offensive really risky.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

On the naval side, chance for non-detection should

fall off as range increases, and non-detection

should increase during storms (recall the Pearl

Harbor task force which hid in a W-E storm).