Re: Stealth (was: Basic strategies for winning almost every map)

[Jens Granseuer <jensgr@xxxxxxx>]

On 05.04.2005 18:59, Jonathan Koren wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Jens Granseuer wrote:
> > That's been possible for ages (though only with cfed, not with comet).
> > The only problem with this feature is that if you restrict a shop for
> > e.g. aircraft it becomes impossible to conquer that shop because
> > infantry is not allowed to enter it...
> 
> I would consider that a bug.  Instead of 'airplanes only' it should be 
> 'airplanes allowed'.

You can currently select a minimum unit class and a maximum unit class.
So you can make it all classes from infantry to aircraft inclusive
(there's tanks and the like in between). You cannot, however, say
infantry and aircraft and nothing else. That's not a bug but a
limitation imposed by design (although not necessarily with good
reason).

> >>> [submarines]
> 
> > Anyway, if we can agree on a sensible and feasible definition of
> > "stealth" then I'm not saying it can't be done.
> 
> I'll make a proposal.
> 
> Stealth is the ability of a unit to remain hidden from opposing forces.

[...]

What does "hidden" mean exactly? Not visible is not enough. What does
it look like when shading the map for a moving unit? Just not displaying
the unit image may result in a suspicious (to say the least) empty hex
in the middle of your field of movement, also shading occupied hexes
would mean an awful lot of special cases, though...

> Some units have antistealth sensors.  Antistealth sensors have a detection 
> range.  Any opposing stealth unit within the detection range is revealed 
> to the force controlling the antistealth unit.  [Ed. ASW helicopters would 
> be great counter to stealth submarines.  AWACS planes and/or radar tanks 
> could counter stealth bombers.  Also, I think antistealth units should be 
> pretty weak offensively/defensively, lest we create some sort of super 
> unit.]

This kind of differentiation would call for multiple types of stealth. I
don't think that kind of complexity is necessary. While stealth bombers
may be harder to detect with radar, they are certainly not invisible in
the same way subs are.

> When a unit without antistealth sensors attempts to move into a hex with a 
> hidden stealth unit, the moving unit remains in the previous hex and the 
> stealth unit is revealed to force controlling the moving unit.  The moving 
> unit may now attack the stealth unit as normal.

What if the detecting unit would rather have chosen a different path and
ignored the sub? What happens when a unit without stealth detection tries
to enter the hex?

Jens