Variable visibility

[Huib Versloot]

there is a (designer controlled) visibility change after turn 5.

Huib,
How can the designer change visibility during the scenario? Can it be written in or does it have to be done by the players during play?

Earl

Designer can't atm, the players have to do it in the bte file. IMO the only good way to implement automatic variable visibility is to add functionality to the scenario editor.

[Von Earlmann]

Thanks Huib

[simovitch]

I like this feature (and no, I'm not a Matrix lackey.)

I wonder what people's perception of it would have been if it was couched strictly as "battlefield smoke and dust"?

[Mike Abberton]

One problem with the battlefield smoke and dust analogy is that smoke and dust would be limited to areas of combat and movement (for dust) whereas scenario visibility is a global feature.

Ironically, the visibility range currently associated with variable visibility is at least partially associated with wet and stormy weather. While that might actually increase the effect of combat-related smoke due to the increased humidity, it would greatly reduce the effects of dust.

I agree with Huib that the best application of variable visibility would be a hard-coded part of the scenario development, not an in-game random phenomenom. But, I'll take the simple mechanism of an optional rule to toggle it off when I play.

[simovitch]

One problem with the battlefield smoke and dust analogy is that smoke and dust would be limited to areas of combat and movement (for dust) whereas scenario visibility is a global feature.

True, but if one considers it an abstraction of smoke and dust, it works pretty well.

Ironically, the visibility range currently associated with variable visibility is at least partially associated with wet and stormy weather. While that might actually increase the effect of combat-related smoke due to the increased humidity, it would greatly reduce the effects of dust.

True, good point. Perhaps they should have to couch it as variable atmospherics.:chin:

I agree with Huib that the best application of variable visibility would be a hard-coded part of the scenario development, not an in-game random phenomenom. But, I'll take the simple mechanism of an optional rule to toggle it off when I play.

Yes, I agree as well. The more I think about it the more I believe it should be an optional rule.

[Von Earlmann]

I like this feature (and no, I'm not a Matrix lackey.)

I wonder what people's perception of it would have been if it was couched strictly as "battlefield smoke and dust"?

The main problem with it is that it changes during the turn.When the visibility is changed after a turn ends it doesn't actually change during that phase.

Let me explain it this way end of turn 3 visibility changes from 8 to 6.
Turn 4 first player will still have 8 visibility...........after that visibility changes to 6 before second players turn.The visibility is actually different for both players during the same turn....this may not seem important until you are playing against a German and the vis increases for the long range gunners........or even worse he shoots you to pieces and the vis decreases and you can't even spot him anymore.

I will say again this rule in it's present form should just be discontinued.

VE

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I like this feature (and no, I'm not a Matrix lackey.)

:chin:
When did you first purchase the Campaign Series?
How many games have you played versus the AI?
How long have you been playing by e-mail? And, what's your total of games played against a human opponent?
How many opponents with winning records have you played?
How many opponents of losing records have you played?
How many of the stock scenarios have you played?

And, how many using the new rules?

I wonder what people's perception of it would have been if it was couched strictly as "battlefield smoke and dust"?

Since you asked. I'd dislike it even more.
Totally out of scale for the game. Unless you can work in the visibility per hex that has specifically been fired from, or fired upon, or moved through, or received artillery fire ...
I do not think you want to generally lower visibility on the entire battlefield?
The variable visibilty is a simplified attempt to mean "smoke and dust"?
Even if it was meant with good intentions, I do not think the game needs that kind of "realism". :smoke:

Maybe we should have the factories spewing smoke ... the trains ... individual village huts?

Nope, don't like it, even as battlefield smoke and dust. :rolleyes:

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I will say again this rule in it's present form should just be discontinued.

I originally thought it should be an option. But, why waste an "optional slot" when it can be added by scenario designers as part of what can be changed in the .bte file code? Or, in the least a scenario designer can make a scenario that is multipart and hardwire the visibility into each game of the series?

I agree with Earl. It should simply be dropped as a "good thought gone bad". :smoke:

[Huib Versloot]

Sure it was made with good intentions but it's the worst addition of functionality since the introduction of armor facing (also out of scale and also made with good intentions and little understanding). Fortunately both these things are optional so I'm not confronted with them.
However the balance is still that IMO 1.04 is a huge improvement over 1.02.

[simovitch]

When did you first purchase the Campaign Series?

ahem... hmm. uh - not sure, but it was in the late '90s. Original East Front. Hey, I'm in the credits for the 1.03 update if that means anything (anything except for "Matrix Lackey" that is...)

How many games have you played versus the AI?

Not sure, well over 100.

How long have you been playing by e-mail? And, what's your total of games played against a human opponent?

junk2drive got me started late last year. I wish it had been sooner. I have 3 or 4 games logged. I got turned off when I asked for double blind and some guy beat me in ladder play, saying: "don't worry - you did better than I did when I played that same scenario".

How many opponents with winning records have you played?
How many opponents of losing records have you played?

The guys I played were good - average.

How many of the stock scenarios have you played?

See above. They were all stock scenarios.

And, how many using the new rules?

4 or 5 stock scenarios. great fun but I stopped several weeks ago to wait for the bug fixes.

Maybe we should have the factories spewing smoke ... the trains ... individual village huts?

great ideas!

Nope, don't like it, even as battlefield smoke and dust.

I hear you Ed. Being a board gamer from the '60's I do tend to rationalize questionable results with "well, I guess it's an abstraction for ____". The visibility thing adds something positive for me, but I know it's not for everybody.