 |
|
Something about 1.03 I'm worried about - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Campaign Series (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=8) +--- Thread: Something about 1.03 I'm worried about (/showthread.php?tid=46426) |
RE: Something about 1.03 I'm worried about - Huib Versloot - 06-29-2008 simovitch Wrote:Gordons HQ Wrote:Well I like itI tend to agree with Gordons HQ's asessment, and I'm looking forward to trying out some of the old scenarios. Visibility is best represented as an incremental degradation, not a black and white can/can not see situation like it is shown in pre-1.03 CS. The problem is that this feature has the greatest impact on scns with low visibility and mostly in these scns this low visibility is the (historical) key factor. A visibility change from 25 hexes to 27 hexes has much less impact than a change from 1 to 3 hexes. Over the years I have tended to use visibilities that are on the low side. I did so because IMO the bird's eye view of the player revealed too much. Long visibility allowed units to fire in support of other units over long distances in an odd kind of way; the same goes for arty spotting that can be done by all units. To exlude undesired effects of long visibility, I rarely use visibility longer than 10 hexes. Therefore, this new "feature" is very much undesired for in my scenarios. RE: Something about 1.03 I'm worried about - Peiper - 06-29-2008 v. Manstein, your right, variable visibility is a great thing. But i think also with some old players not automaticaly. Thats must be a decision from scene designer and clear with informations for both played sides from beginning the game. RE: Something about 1.03 I'm worried about - Herr Straße Laufer - 06-29-2008 Herr Peiper, I never said it was a bad thing?  Even though I am old and an old gamer with CS I see the von Manstein example as something out of the scope of the original designers. They would have offered maybe three 20 turn games in series or four 15 turn games in series and to represent the change in visibility over the course of the three or four different scenarios? It is really a case of asking the game to do something it was never intended. And, as Rod stated it changes everything that has gone before it on a permanent basis, with no option ot override. I like some but not all of the changes. Most I can choose to use or not. This one is so large and I have my hands chained that it really stands out for me, to highlight the "wrong" direction that is being taken. 
RE: Something about 1.03 I'm worried about - simovitch - 06-29-2008 I think every point made on this topic (and it's a good one) has merit. I just hope that the TLSFSAONOC is still on.:( RE: Something about 1.03 I'm worried about - Peiper - 06-29-2008 Ed, i´m a little bit surprised and it´s funny that you my meaning used against you or your view! Why? You don´t like germans with some experience and some opinions about the game? My answer for v. Manstein or other posts was never against your view or so but only my opinion involved bad english. So sorry about that and take care with your personal attacks! RE: Something about 1.03 I'm worried about - Von Earlmann - 06-29-2008 Well......I'm 60 years old as of a week ago..and I have seen my share of changing visibilities.......in the summer it breaks light around 4AM........and gets dark around 8PM.........if it gets foggy vis will change in about 20 mins from 20 hexs to 0 hexs........great for naval scenarios.........if we have severe t-boomers vis will go from 20 hexs to about 2......takes about an hour or more and you can see it coming a long time before that.....when it breaks light vis increases gradually over a period of about 30 to 40 mins....same thing when it gets dark......put that in and it is a good thing...only time I can ever remember vis changing every 10 mins or so is in fog......on water.....of which I spent a few years.....again great feature for naval scenarios. I guess the team is always trying to improve things and that's a good thing.....but there is always an equal and opposite reaction for every action.........very difficult to try and determine the ripple effect when making a rules change until it is actually seen in operation. The beauty of it is it can be fixed..........no need to change games........just use a little patience........it is the thing saints are made of and also makes ambushes work :-) von Earlmann RE: Something about 1.03 I'm worried about - Dogovich - 06-29-2008 It is hard to know what to say in this situation. To me, variable visibility is a very real fact of life, even in a extra low visibility situation like fog in the Ardennes, heavy rains, etc... Rain can come and go in an instant, or wind can whip through and tear fog to shreds. Or else, fog itself is not always the massively consistent blanket that some imagine it to be. This any of us should know from driving through it on the highway. One shouldn't be able to go out, look at a figure and know that a variable like sight is set in stone. Things are always changing. There's always the unforseen. On the other hand, the changes as they are may be too severe and occur too often. Things can stay constant for long periods of time before suddenly starting to shift about some. If anyone's comments make ultimate sense to me it is those made by Ed concerning scale. Visibilty probably ought not to change every turn, and truly it doesn't. But from what I've read in this thread, it does deserve a review. RE: Something about 1.03 I'm worried about - K K Rossokolski - 06-29-2008 This whole dynamic seems clouded in mystery.. pun intended. What was the original intention behind variable visibility? Was it to simulate changing weather conditions? If so, surely it is up to the designer, who has researched the history, to program vis changes, if any, into his scen when building it. Or was it to enable scenarios to move from night to day, and thus allow a more realistic simulation of many historical battles. which started quite commonly before dawn. Again, surely up to the scen designer. However, in this case, there may be an argument for the computer to change from night to day over a period of, say, 2-4 turns, to simulate the transition which is never instantaneous and of course varies with latitude, season etc etc. I wonder do the limitations of the old CS game prevent the reasonable simulation of some factors??.. Clearly, the appearance of eg bridge builders was within the game capabilities. It was doable. It may be too much was being tried here, with results that are unacceptable to a significant number. I think the point at issue, on which we need to focus, is the uncontrollability of the visibility changes...that is what concerns people. RE: Something about 1.03 I'm worried about - Feldgeneral Hoth - 06-29-2008 Hi Guys. As designer, I'm with Huib. Random visibility must be optional,if not eliminated. This AI element will afect all scns already made since years. From a historical point of view, all control of this effect by game engine is not compatible with historical scns, and I like them. Steel rain said: Quote: making this change non-optional is a step in the wrong direction. Unlike many of the other changes, this will have effects across all scenarios and will likely affect the balance of many in unexpected ways. It may also cancel out the intentions of designers who take historical accuracy seriously. So, good bye to historical scns... Chema. RE: Something about 1.03 I'm worried about - K K Rossokolski - 06-29-2008 Well said, Chema!! |
){kind=link}