[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Stealth (was: Basic strategies for winning almost every map)
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Matthias Grimm wrote:
I discussed this issue recently with a friend and compared our results with
Battle Ise. I think we should divide the issue in two topics:
1. Submarines
2. Stealth units and RADAR
1. Per definition dived submarines are not visible to the opponent.
Because a hex field can only be ocupied by one single unit, an opponents
unit can't move to the hex field where the dived submarine. The result
is that this hex field must be shaded in the map of possible moves. This
is excact how Battle Isle handles this. But this behaviour has a big
disadvantage: The opponent only have to click on every own ship to scan
for submarines because hex fields where he can't move to, must contain a
submarine.
I would recommend the following behaviour: The hex field containing a
submarine would be handled as every other field the opponent's ship can
move to (no shading in movement map). When the ship should move to the
submarine's field, the submarine became visible and the ship stopped
just a hex before. In this case the opponent has discovered the
submarine by chance.
I agree, since I said pretty much the same thing earlier. :)
To increase the chance to find a submarine I would make it visible too
if the ship is placed in direct neibourhood of the submarine (one of the
six surrounding hex fields). Higher range sonar would require a RADAR
model which is not implemented yet.
I don't know about this. I like the idea of submarines pretty much
determining when to reveal themselves. I also like the idea of submarines
slipping through armadas. In game terms I have too concerns.
1. With this "detect subs in adjacent hexes", all you need to do is place
your ships every two hexes to create an impenentrable submarine net.
Granted there aren't many maps (if any) that use subs now, but given the
size of the maps we've seen so far, 3 or 4 ships would be sufficient to
cover most of the map. Basically, this is a question of balance. I'd
prefer to see this rule not implemented at first, and if subs are too
powerful, then have this rule added later.
2. How would this "detect subs in adjacent hexes" work for a moving ship?
They why you have it the rule described, it seems like you're primarily
thinking about the end of movement. What happens if you have a torpedo
boat that moves across the board and somewhere in inits movement it passes
by a submarine. Does it detect it? If so does the torpedo boat stop just
as if it tried to move into the submarine's hex? If it doesn't, does the
sub stay on the map even after the torpedo boat moves past? (I think it
should, since it would simulate radioing the position of the sub to the
rest of fleet.)
Here's a more interesting possibility. Remember that a player doesn't see
their opponents actually move. The screen goes black, and after some
time, the updated board appears. Say yellow two ships, one to act as a
scout, and another to to act as a killer. Blue has a sub that is hidden.
Yellow send its scout past the submarine and detects it as the scout moves
past the submarine. Yellow then moves its killer towards the submarine,
but can't attack it this turn. Yellow knows where the submarine is now,
and therefore has an idea where the submarine will be next turn. On
blue's turn it sees that scout ship is past him, but doesn't know whether
the scout passed directly by him or swung wide and missed him. Blue
doesn't know he's been detected. This gives yellow an advantage.
Normally, I'd be fine with this asymmetry, but in this case the asymmetry
comes about because the games UI conspired against a player. I don't like
that.
2. CF has no RADAR model yet and the following description is only
usefull if CF will get something like that. We don't have to discuss the
word 'Stealth' if we can't hide any unit in the game.
I like the radar idea, and it's pretty much what I was trying to get at
with the idea of antistealth sensors. I really like the idea of having
radar effectiveness fall off at long distances, but something like that
would should be saved until "fog of war" is implemented, if/when that ever
happens.
--
Jonathan Koren World domination? I'll leave that to the
jkoren@xxxxxxxxxx religious nuts and Republicans, thank you.
http://www.cs.siu.edu/~jkoren/ -- The Monarch, "Venture Brothers"