I can see for miles and miles...

Post by **George Geczy** » Jun 29 2003

>"Would it have taken a lot of less time if you had just implemented the "fuzzy" mode?"

No, the "Standard mode" (with the "harder to hit for stealth units" method) was already implemented, the entire LOS code had to be overhauled to support the Fuzzy mode. It was no longer a case of "you see it, or you don't", it was necessary to implement a system of spotting strength, stealth strength, and range-effectiveness. This was "almost" easy to do using a simple unit-versus-unit check (ie, each unit would try to "spot" every enemy unit based on distance between them), but such a system would completely ignore terrain such as highground and forests, which the Standard system supported as LOS-reducers.

I tossed out another half-dozen ideas as being technically flawed before working out the one now used, which is a very complex mix of spotting/stealth/range/terrain/time. It would also have been less difficult if we didn't have a real-time mode; turn based games can take all the time they want to calculate LOS after you hit "end turn", but we need to do it on the fly without slowing things down. I have never seen another real-time game that does a complex LOS system, so I guess we'll chalk this up as another first for Supreme Ruler 2010.

Regarding your question of other "wish list choices", you can rest assured that WMD and Missiles are on the 'definite' list. As to other elements that are under debate, that sounds like a good thread topic for David to start at some point.

-- George.

Post by **George Geczy** » Jun 29 2003

And here's a quick question:

The design currently has it that units that are firing are at 1/4 stealth strength (ie, much more likely to be seen).

Does this sound right, or should units that are firing ALWAYS be seen while they are firing? After all, it's generally a hard thing to hide, and it is the most likely thing to give away a unit's position...

-- George.

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Jun 30 2003

1/4 stealth modifier sounds fair.
After all, even if firing doesnt make the attacker "visible" it stills gives a general loc and knowledge that a foe is there.

[ This Message was edited by: tkobo on 2003-06-29 22:43 ]

3iff · Post by **3iff** » Jun 30 2003

Great news that both options are in. Good luck with getting the fuzzy model to work well.

Great also that you continue to ask the forum for opinions and that you listen to them and usually act on them, but the regulars here know you are more than willing to do this. I just wish some other game makers would be this open...

Post by **BattleGoat** » Jun 30 2003

This no longer concerns "Fuzziness" since that seems to now be resolved, but is also relevant to this thread...

We recently decided the rules on LOS for Airplanes that are landed at an Airport or an Airstrip and thought we'd just pass them by the forum to make sure there is no violent disagreement

First it is important to understand the difference between an Airport and an Airstrip to the game; An Airport can be used to manufacture up to three sqadrons of airplanes at a time. If you wanted to build a new Airport on the map it would take 110 days to construct at a cost of $20.4 Million per day. Once it is constructed it takes 14000 personnel to actually run. An Airstrip on the other hand can be constructed in 20 days at a cost of $3 Million per day. Once completed, an Airstrip only requires 2000 reserve personnel to operate. Although it is not able to manufacture planes, it does support the supply model and allow the same number of squadrons to be stationed.

Here's where we get to the LOS involvement... What happens to planes that are landed? Can they be seen by recon units? or by AWACs planes flying within range? With regard to Airports, our rule is this: Planes that are landed on an Airport would be inside hangars that were part of the airport construction. Since they are inside a building they would be invisible to any recon units. The only time you would see them is when they "Scrambled" (that assumes you aren't fuzzy

and can see that type of airplane!).

An Airstrip on the other hand does not have the infrastructure of hangars etc... It was constructed likely to provide convenience to frontline sorties. So here's our ruling on it: We have decided that planes landed at an Airstrip ARE visible to units that get within their LOS range on the Airstrip. (after all, these planes are essentially just sitting out on the runway!)

Comments? Concerns? Let us know...

- David

3iff · Post by **3iff** » Jul 01 2003

I would have thought that aircraft at an airstrip CAN be seen by spotting enemy units. An airport would probably have sufficient cover to conceal any aircraft, including hardened bunkers for extra protection.

However, can AWACs type units (using just radar) see objects on the ground? I'm not an expert on the subject, but I would have thought it wasn't possible...I'll have to try to find out.

As an aside with this fuzziness...would it be advantageous to have 'generic' spotting. That is, you can see planes (or tanks or whatever) but cannot identify what they are exactly or who owns them. This means you might see a generic plane icon at the site but no other information, requiring you to take a closer look. It might even turn out that the spotter was 'seeing things' and there is nothing there at all...(works for red haired, green eyed wenches too...)

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Jul 01 2003

On 2003-07-01 00:28, 3iff wrote:
However, can AWACs type units (using just radar) see objects on the ground? I'm not an expert on the subject, but I would have thought it wasn't possible...I'll have to try to find out.

Yes they can, In fact there are even aircraft designed specifically for this,J-Star is one .

I dont see any problem with the way you are planning on handling LOS/spotting for the airstrip/airport.
Bunkers are just a stat right-ie they cant be targeted as a specific part of the airport.They are just an intangible measure of storage right ?

Post by **BattleGoat** » Jul 01 2003

"Bunkers are just a stat..." That's right. We just give a defensive value to the entire structure. As to the planes that are at an airport, they would attempt to scramble should the airport come under attack.

As an fyi... This is a little off topic, but --- If an Airport/Airstrip comes under land attack and is captured, what should happen to planes that couldn't for one reason or another take off. Currently I've indicated in the design that they should be destroyed and not fall into enemy hands. (Last soldiers there would just drop a grenade into any planes that were grounded so that they won't be of future use to another player.) Sound reasonable?

- David
_________________
David Thompson
Lead Designer / Partner
BattleGoat Studios

[ This Message was edited by: BattleGoat on 2003-07-01 08:49 ]

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Jul 01 2003

I would really like some form of capture system.
Its doesnt have to be an automactic capture of all equipment there(in fact id be agaisnt this)-but maybe something like the scorch earth system.
Where equipment takes damage or is lost based on a few criteria.

"- It now takes time (ie, a few days at least) to scrap a facility. It will basically "unbuild" and slowly return raw materials to your stockpiles; but this gives the first player a chance to re-capture and reclaim the working (but a bit reduced) facility.

- Scorching will factor in situations such as nearby units and hex population loyalty; it will also not be a definite, ie a factory may get damaged but not destroyed entirely by scorching. But most of all, if the hex population is 100% loyal to player 1, then chances are strong that player 2 cannot capture and scorch it; the local population will prevent the scorch command from being carried out for the invading player.

There is still the possibility that a quick capture would trigger the original player's own scorching policy, but that's his fault for engaging the policy in the first place - don't turn it on if you don't mean it.

-- George."

This system for scorched earth is very good,something like it for equipment capture would be very nice.

Juergen · Post by **Juergen** » Jul 01 2003

On 2003-07-01 10:23, tkobo wrote:
I would really like some form of capture system.
Its doesnt have to be an automactic capture of all equipment there(in fact id be agaisnt this)-but maybe something like the scorch earth system.
Where equipment takes damage or is lost based on a few criteria.

A little off-topic indeed,but nevermind

I agree that the damage the equipment gets should be based on what type of equipment it actually is.
It is far easier to destroy a few fragile planes than to destroy some airport buildings.
I think 80% of the planes on the captured airfield should be destroyed.

- Scorching will factor in situations such as nearby units and hex population loyalty; it will also not be a definite, ie a factory may get damaged but not destroyed entirely by scorching. But most of all, if the hex population is 100% loyal to player 1, then chances are strong that player 2 cannot capture and scorch it; the local population will prevent the scorch command from being carried out for the invading player.

Im not really sure what is meant here.So I ask just to be sure.

Is this scorching meant to be done by some civillian workers?
In this case I would say tkobo is right,the other player would have a hard letting things scorched,could be difficult without workforce

But in case he is talking about shooting the upgrades with military units then I wouldnt say that the population could stop that with any hope of succsess.

To get a back on topic:

As far as the 1/4 stealth for attacking units is concerned im going to give it a "quick" yes.
It certainly sounds right because weapon launches can be hard to keep secret.

The questions about landed planes are a bit more difficult:

-I agree that planes on airstrips are at any rate more visible and more vulnrable than aircrafts sheltered in proper airfields
-while you might not directly see an aircraft in a shelter you DO know that it landed there,so I think that you should have a kind of "guess" whats inside the airfield

While we are talking about aircrafts and airfields I would also like to ask a few questions:

Could a fighter (like the F14) attack an aircraft that currently is on the ground at an airfield?
I think the target in question should be treated like a very light ground target,so the fighter shouldnt do much damage against it.

[ This Message was edited by: Juergen on 2003-07-01 12:03 ]

Post by **Balthagor** » Jul 02 2003

I can answer the F-14 attacking the units on the ground...

Until the unit is deployed from the base it is stored in the base. If an F-14 attacks a base with undeployed units, currently only the base would take damage based on the F-14's "fortification" attack value. Tkobo's comments on units taking some portion of the damage should be considered here. If there are units deployed at the base with ammo and fuel, as soon as the F-14 was within range, they would launch to intercept and a dogfight would ensue. If the units where deployed but where out of fuel or ammo, they would remain landed at the airport and would be attacked as grounded targets with much lower defensive values. It is important to note that if you sent an F-14 interceptor to shoot down the enemy planes but the planes did not launch to meet you, the F-14 interceptor is not well equiped to attack ground targets and would have a very low effectiveness. It would be better to refit the F-14 to a ground attack variant or send in a fighter that has a mixed load (an interceptor with a payload of missile units for ground attack like an F-18 with some JSOWs would work well...)

XeroMan · Post by **XeroMan** » Jul 14 2003

Hmmm, just what is an average player anyways? Fuzzy would add more complexity and more frustration perhaps, but in the end it's the surprises that help make a game fun. Yeah, it's comforting to see everything coming so you can plan everything through. But I think people would come to love Fuzzy once they got used to it. It will make this game truly unique. Just cover it extensively in the manual/tutorial so they know what to expect. They should be surprised by a unit appearing in thier territory, but they shouldn't be scratching thier heads asking "How did that get there??". If they know to expect the unexpected, then it will be alright.

****YOU WON"T ALWAYS SEE UNITS AS THEY APPROACH...BE PREPARED FOR UNITS TO APPEAR UNEXECTEDLY!!!!****

Post by **Balthagor** » Jul 26 2003

Well, we have had a few games with the new line of sight now and it seems to be working well. One of the items that hasn't been implimented yet is electronic warfare units. They basics are in and what we've set up is that units like the EA-6B will be very easy to spot on the map (They are never hidden by the LOS if they are in range) but decrease the spotting strenght of enemy units. This might allow units that would normally be seen to stay hidden.