Something about 1.03 I'm worried about

[Von Earlmann]

At the risk of being accused of trying to insult the beta team. I must weigh in with Huib et al...........I had no idea this was even in there........my best advice on some things................"If it ain't broke don't fix it"

von Earlmann aka (someone who likes the los of his scenarios the way they are)

[Herr Straße Laufer]

When I first heard about dynamic visibility I thought about it in the way Umbro used in scenario depicting battle for Leros or Huib was trying to depict in his "Dutch Verdun". That at very specific turn the visibility changes due to the time of the day or weather conditions. But in the moment that designer wanted it to have changed. I wouldn't leave it to pure % chance

Optional it make, the best it will be!

Looks like optional is winning.

Unfortunately, it won't take effect until the 1.04 UPDATE as it is too late for the 1.03 UPDATE.

Give it a whirl in the meantime, there were no complaints about it in testing.

Jason Petho

Pardon my comments. I'm not as much beating on anyone as I am trying to defend the game I love. :smoke:

Does your "Beta Team" need expansion?
Do they need to understand "game scale"?
Do they think that all of "us" others will accept the evolution of the game into something it was never intended and something that kept us all playing it for so long? :(

I am puzzled by some of the changes and how we are told to wait for what is to come. :chin:
I am saddened that those who play it are not as involved and accepted into the "inner circle" that is attempting to alter what we thought was "pure" and "good".

It is like my analogy of the '57 Chevy having chrome added to it to make it a Belair. Wow! It just devalued the value of the '57 Chevy?
You can make a lawn mower go 60 miles per hour but, it will no longer work as a lawn mower.
They make Tractor Trailer "tractors" into drag racers and circle track racers but, they no longer can haul freight?

I am hoping that the "team" can take a step back and see that they are painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa?
If there are many more similar changes I may have to take a step back from the game and reload my old Talonsoft disks.
I feel we have too much that is now shoved down our throats that is making the game ... not THE game!

Please do not do things "out of scale" and make them part of the game engine. Make them an option if you are dead set on doing it? But, do not make it the "kings law" that will drive some of the most loyal customers out of playing the newest version of the game. :conf:

And, Earl, do not be afraid of speaking your mind. As one of the better scenario designers your voice needs to be heard?

[Gordons HQ]

Well I like it
Huib talks of unrealistic.
Well how realistic is it to check out an hex for visibility without actually moving a unit into it. I can't think of anyway that could have been done in WWII, you could have an educated guess but that's it, a guess.
Yet in the game all you have to do it left click on the hex you want to check out, then select hot key V and there you have it. The visibility and LOS from that hex is revealed to you, not at all realistic just a game facility.
This IMO has lead to all the shooting and scooting that occurs within the game which would be impossible in reality. At times it's just like playing against a ghost army, one minute it's there, the next it's gone.
WWII just didn't happen like that and if anyone believes it did then reading history books should disprove this.
So if this variable visibility cuts out just a bit of this I'm all for it.
Those that employ this tactic will never be certain again that the next turn the visibility won't reveal there hiding position.
I think it's worth losing the ambush now and again just to stop the endemic use of the above.
When all is said and done it will still be a contest of who uses there forces the best in the game and I can't see what all the fuss is about.
I applaud those who are trying to improve the game and I feel that another side to this discussion had to be put as it seemed very one sided to press.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Well I like it

<snip for space>

I think it's worth losing the ambush now and again just to stop the endemic use of the above.
When all is said and done it will still be a contest of who uses there forces the best in the game and I can't see what all the fuss is about.
I applaud those who are trying to improve the game and I feel that another side to this discussion had to be put as it seemed very one sided to press.

Don't get me wrong. I am not against things being done to improve the game.
I do not play a "shoot and scoot" game. I set up ambushes and ensure that there is not much left that can see my units. That is different from moving units forward to shoot and then go back to be out of sight.
And, we now have AT staying as hidden units even after firing.

And, "we" did not say it should not be done. "We" said it should be an option.
If you can show me anywhere in all of the world where visibility changes every six minutes, I say then include it as part of the game engine for battles in that part of the world.
If not, and the designer wants to design out of the scale of the game, then make it an option.

I'd rather have a mustache with sticky tape that can be put onto the Mona Lisa, and taken off, rather than someone taking a black marking pen and drawing it on permanently.

Everyone has their opinions of what is realistic and what is not. To "make it so" and not care for the other half is rather shallow? To have it as an option would actually be able to satisfy most? :smoke:

You must like the old "Belair"? ;)

[Steelrain60]

I don't weigh in on these boards that much, and I've been fairly happy so far with what Matrix has done to improve CS.

But 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.

I'm all in favor of adding this as AN OPTION, but the way it is set up now means that I will consider remaining at 1.02 for the time being. I will likely wait till 1.04 in the hope that this is made an optional rule to be incorporated into the scenario editor. If this rule can be deleted from 1.03 with additional delay in release, I'd be more willing to accept that.

Jason et al, thank you for all of your work. But this is a serious mistake that will seriously affect game play.

[Fubar1]

I haven't played a lot of games since the latest release and was also unaware this was something that was added. The majority is correct. Variable visibility should b optional only. It drastically changes the historical scenarios and gets away from what makes this game engine so great.
I can't even imagine what variable visibilty does to the Rising Sun scenarios whichh are very dependent on low visibility.

I don't think it can wait. Change it as fast as humanly possible

[simovitch]

Well I like it
Huib talks of unrealistic.
Well how realistic is it to check out an hex for visibility without actually moving a unit into it. I can't think of anyway that could have been done in WWII, you could have an educated guess but that's it, a guess.
Yet in the game all you have to do it left click on the hex you want to check out, then select hot key V and there you have it. The visibility and LOS from that hex is revealed to you, not at all realistic just a game facility.

I 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.

In a way this feature represents the variability of things like "that tree was in the way a minute (or 6 minutes) ago, but I scooted a few inches and now the whole ridge is visible across the valley".

IMO all "realism" bets are off anyway with the ubiquitous "borg-spotting" that is endemic to tactical level wargames. Even considering the 6 min. turns, this feature should be considered an abstraction of real life visibility and the uncertainty of accurate battlefield assessment.

Any feature that adds an element of fear and uncertainty (like the new AT gun spotting rules) is OK in my book, and I wouldn't mind if it stayed as a hard wired feature.

I understand those that want to retain the nostalgia of the before times, and those that feel it may ruin their favorite scenarios. I guess it's lucky for them that my opinion is part of the vast minority.

[K K Rossokolski]

Although my earlier question -will this have an effect on ALL existing scenarios??-has not been directly answered, I sense from the tone of some of these posts that it will.
How would people who have laboured over scens to create what they see as a reasonable reenactment of history feel about it if someone got into their posted scen and decided to change things around? This is in effect what is happening.

In my old fashioned value system, I have questions of ethics and propriety about this. If optional, fine for those who want it.

Another point we could consider is 'change'.....does change necessarily mean 'improvement'. History will give you a very uncertain answer on that question.

[von Manstein]

Variable visibility is a great thing. It can make larger scenarios more realistic. 60 turns is 6 hours. When battle begins at 4 am will end at 10. In winter at 4 is quite dark but at 10 is bright. But this option should be set by scenario designer in this one is doing and want to set it up. Not in all scenarios by program.

Like I wrote before I could understand changing visibility per 10 or 20 turns but every turn …:chin:

[Herr Straße Laufer]

In a way this feature represents the variability of things like "that tree was in the way a minute (or 6 minutes) ago, but I scooted a few inches and now the whole ridge is visible across the valley".

IMO all "realism" bets are off anyway with the ubiquitous "borg-spotting" that is endemic to tactical level wargames. Even considering the 6 min. turns, this feature should be considered an abstraction of real life visibility and the uncertainty of accurate battlefield assessment.

Any feature that adds an element of fear and uncertainty (like the new AT gun spotting rules) is OK in my book, and I wouldn't mind if it stayed as a hard wired feature.

I understand those that want to retain the nostalgia of the before times, and those that feel it may ruin their favorite scenarios. I guess it's lucky for them that my opinion is part of the vast minority.

I appreciate your opinion.
I am not arguing for nostalgia as much as I am arguing for game scale. If any unit has the ability to peek out from behind a tree that is part of the game, in the scale of the game? Measures can be taken against it. If you cahnge the game scale and the game into what it is not, I'm going to have to consider my desire to stick with it at all. I've played the game for almost eight years, I've been a member of the Blitz reporting games for almost six years, and I've been a Ladder Commander for almost four years. My play and time spent is from the game I love. If it is no longer the game I love I will have to reevalute my time and efforts.
Sorry that so many of you fall for the shoot and scooters. I play them once and usually do not play them again.
But, to tell me that a totally outrageous thing like brighteness and darkness pulsing every six minutes to reveal or hide units over a 250 meter hex, is really beyond being nostalgic, don't you think? :chin:

Gosh, I can't wait for the Panthers with the infrared sights that are not effected by visibility at all and the scenario designers who will put hundreds of them into a scenario and call it realistic or really, really kewl. :rolleyes:

I'm not asking for reality or fantasy. Maybe I like to think what I have in mind is realistic and want the fantasy to be optional. :smoke: