Please allow later move or fire!

[dougman4]

bump

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Rolend:

So the game has problems on defence? Ok I won't argue with that but why take ease of use of the I/F away instead of fixing the Defence problem?

With the increased amount of attacking directions defense is literally impossible - just ask Terif. If some defensive bonus or something would be brought in that would alter gamebalance and all scenarios had to be revised.

[Blashy]

I find that defense is fine, if you have have AFs taking 100% morale and readiness down to about 30% with only 3 hits.

Its simply too easy to only attack units that AFs can strike at and then they are taken down without a sweat.

AFs were kind of easy to stay away from in un-open land areas.

If AFs were as dominant in WW2 as they are in SC2, it would not have taken 1 year to get across France when the Allies had total air superiority.

Or being stuck just south of Italy, yet the Germans were being bombed relentlessly and stayed virtually unscathed by these attacks.

[Qyusson]

The option should be available... i sign

[dougman4]

bump

[dougman4]

bump

[Rolend]

Still no response from HC, I wonder if he is considering it or if he thinks it is a bad idea.

[Cary]

It's a major change to the game design; as Kuniworth notes, it would change the balance in a lot of the scenarios.

Have I seen a compelling realism argument in this thread? I'm not sure there is one given the game's level of granularity. Once you decide to go with any "IGOUGO" sequence in a game, you've basically decided that the passage of time will be abstracted; details within that abstraction are arbitrary.

Would it be nice to have the option to play with a different mechanic? Sure....

But the game was designed to work without it, and a lot of the scenarios would be broken with it. Sure it's frustrating, but having to plan is always frustrating if you don't do it.

Bottom line: nice option, but are there better pieces of code for HC to work on? I suspect so.

[ July 25, 2006, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: Cary ]

[dougman4]

I’ve politely requested making it an option to avoid debate as to the merits. I would prefer people who don’t recognize the merits to give the suggestion the benefit of the doubt. This feature is not a change of paradigm to IGOUGO since it is all IGO until the turn is ended, just like normal. The affect on playability is only positive, and there is nothing in the game that I’ve noticed more pressing for HC to work on. The masochistic tendencies of some in the audience should not run roughshod over those who prefer improvement.

[Jim Cobb]

I can see this in HtH but the AI is "impaired" enough as it is. Can it be coded so as to take advantage of this?

[Rolend]

I don't see it as that big a game balance issue, I mean I would not move every unit I have one square at a time just to take advantage of some knowalge of where things are, I would think that would be insane and lengthen games 10 fold. However I am constently mis-clicking and losing movement and attacks do to how the game works now. I find the I/f very easy to use but this part just feels SO clunky and frankly no other turn based game I have played uses this type of system.

If you think it is gamey or gives an unfair advantage to the human player vs AI fine then make it an option but please don't rule it out of hand.

It sure would be nice to hear from HC on this issue, I mean it may not be a simple thing to do, if it took a major re-write of the engine to implement then I can understand that, but just to keep it out of the game for balance issues seem folly to me.

[Scook]

If it is put into the game, make it optional, like taking back unit moves.

[Cary]

Just to clarify: Rolend and Dougman, you both seem to be arguing for this change as a U/I enhancement so you get fewer "Doh!" moments when you click off a unit.

I guess the only reason I'm cautious is that where and how units move is a game mechanic as well as a U/I feature -- units' behavior changes when you make the whole move-fire routine more forgiving. Not least, it seems, such a mechanic would allow three or more units to attack from a single space where only two could previously. Such a change is significant.

[dougman4]

It appears you haven’t seen it successfully incorporated as I have. Go buy Panzer Generals 1 & II and put yourself at ease – there is no change in game dynamics whatsoever. Typically, developers have polished their game mechanics before the initial release so that you never need witness such a modification through patches – and what I suggest wouldn’t seem so odd to some of you. To have to continue to hover your mouse while locked on a particular unit and concentrate on avoiding right clicking is completely ludicrous. If you have activated a piece, you should be able to de-active it a will without losing any movement/firing options so that you can explore the map, examine other units, look at various game menus, etc. You cannot hope to properly plan and execute strategy without doing so. You’ll be surprised how much more fun the game becomes.

Those who keep referring to a supposed dramatic change in game play simply aren’t thinking through logically. Let’s take for example how my suggestion would affect an army or tank unit, the core of the game.

Scenario 1: Turn starts with said unit not adjacent to an enemy unit. You can move your unit next to an enemy unit. You can click off your unit. You can research, go to the bathroom, work out, see a movie, eat dinner, then come back and re-click on your unit and attack the adjacent unit. That’s it, you weren’t able to fire more than once or move more than once. What’s more, you couldn’t do anything more than you can now. This in no way enabled more units to be able to attack another unit than is possible now. You just weren’t forced to sit in the chair and have hand cramps and panic attacks that you might ruin the game by clicking off the unit. Nothing but improvement!

Scenario 2: Turn starts with said unit adjacent to an enemy unit. Your options and game actions are precisely the same. You can attack the adjacent enemy unit and then move somewhere else. Or, you can move your unit away from the adjacent enemy unit without attacking. Perhaps next to a second enemy unit that you attack. These options are nothing more than you have now. There is no more opportunity for multiple attacks and breakthroughs than you currently have.

Please, people, play a game where you are not so arbitrarily confined and you’ll doubtlessly feel so liberated and happy you’ll jump up and down with me to get Hubert on this at once!! I’ve a network of head to head wargaming players that shun the EC series entirely because this defect alone renders it more frustrating than fun. I guarantee Hubert will garner many more sales once word gets out this is fixed.

[Yogi]

The one thing remaining to make this an amazing game is to preserve a unit's remaining ability to shoot or move after you click off the unit.

Sorry coming into the discussion late I know. I just want to add that I agree as well. It has been quite frustrating to click off a unit and then not be able to go back to it again.

[SeaMonkey]

Just to add to the tactical argument of this feature. You could now perform bounding recon or overwatch which I believe is a valuable lesson applied even to today's combat formations.

Yeah I know this is a grand strategic game, but aren't the best games the ones that capture the flavor of all the scales?

[FerrisB]

This would be a great change ... signed.

[Cary]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

Just to add to the tactical argument of this feature. You could now perform bounding recon or overwatch which I believe is a valuable lesson applied even to today's combat formations.

Yeah I know this is a grand strategic game, but aren't the best games the ones that capture the flavor of all the scales?

Here you are contradicting Dougman's long and impassioned argument that later move or fire wouldn't change the game dynamics.

As to your second point... no.

[TaoJah]

I agree with this proposal : you should be able to move and attack seperatly per unit in the understanding that all your movement is gone once you move.

And I don't understand the logic of the people that are against it. You don't get more recon, you don't get more attacks, you can't attack from the same spot with more units then now...

Exactly why does this change things so badly ?

[Cary]

Originally posted by TaoJah:

I agree with this proposal : you should be able to move and attack seperatly per unit in the understanding that all your movement is gone once you move.

And I don't understand the logic of the people that are against it. You don't get more recon, you don't get more attacks, you can't attack from the same spot with more units then now...

Exactly why does this change things so badly ?

1) your proposal sounds different from the two other proposals out there -- nobody's been entirely clear about what they would like to change to: PzG's a good start, but the fact that SeaMonkey disagrees with Dougman4 over whether it changes game dynamics suggest that even the supporters of "later move or fire" disagree over exactly how to implement the change. (your proviso that "all your movement is gone once you move" suggests a similar internal confusion -- did you mean "all your movement is gone once you attack?"

2) As to your specific proposal, I move up to Rostov with unit A, I move behind Rostov with unit B, finding an air unit. Then I forego an attack with unit A because unit B has given me extra information. This appears a subtle change in game mechanics. But "Subtle" changes can ripple through the whole game.

Bottom line, your proposal gives the moving player the opportunity to perform more recon before conducting his attacks. This leads to less "fog of war" and more effective turns on the part of the initiative player.

The game's already offense dominant, your suggestion only increases the effectiveness of the offense.

[ July 31, 2006, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Cary ]

[Rolend]

Cary you are right it will effect game play, however I think in most cases the effects will be minnor at most, it is not something that will drasticly alter game stratgy and it allows for ease of I/F 100% of the time.

The only valid reason I can see for not adding this in the the game would be if it would take a major rework of the engine, only HC can tell us that and I hope for a reply from him one way or the other so we can let this drop

[Cary]

My experience of board wargames: the difference between Move-combat and Move-combat-move is huge. MoveA, MoveB,CombatA,MoveB may not be as big as allowing overruns, but it's still potentially significant.

"I think" "in most cases" only "minor" effects

-- a playtester's nightmare of a sentence.

Perhaps HC's response will be "sure, sounds great." Fine. But it seems worth realizing the extent of the change you propose.

[ July 31, 2006, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Cary ]

[Hubert Cater]

From a technical standpoint it changes a few things behind the scenes... not impossible but it will of course affect AI and undoubtedly game play not to mention how to best represent it in game... i.e. most games use 2 numbers one for strength and one for remaining AP where I could just use the existing flash symbol to indicate further AP or a combination of the two systems.

Biggest thing is that it could require some considerable play testing and possibly re-balancing as depending on which Move-combat system is used (Cary highlights a few of them).

Off hand though all I can say for sure is that I still want to focus on bug fixing and AI improvements first and I could always revisit this down the road when there is more time.

[Rolend]

Ok HC thanks for the reply, I thought it might be more then a tweak and I agree that bug fixing and AI are way more important. For me this is more of a 'nice to have' item.

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by Cary:

My experience of board wargames: the difference between Move-combat and Move-combat-move is huge. MoveA, MoveB,CombatA,MoveB may not be as big as allowing overruns, but it's still potentially significant.

Yes, those would be huge changes. But that's not the change that's asked.

Now the system is : "Move unit A, Attack with unit A, move unit B, attack with unit B" or "Attack with unit A, Move unit A, move unit B, attack with unit B". It's AA, then BB, then CC...

What's aked is something like "Move unit A, Attack with unit B, Attack with unit A, Move with unit B". So ABAB or ABBA or whatever.

I agree that more then one move turn per unit is a very big chance with huge effects on game balace. But the way it was proposed is minor, IMHO.

But I agree with HC : first the AI patches (including the game-breaking bad D-Day AI-logic, I hope) and the bug fixes.