firing at hex with multiple targets

[Hawk Kriegsman]

I like direct fire the way it is.

If I choose to fire at a target I want my fire to go to that target.

I do not want the game engine to decide for me what I am firing at.

The game represents combat in a very abstract way. It does a good job at that.

Is everything perfect. No. But the game has been here since 1996. Says something about the game engine.

Pawel I total understand your point, but I agree with Jason on this one.

Leave the direct fire mechanics alone.

Thanx!

Hawk

[PawelM]

Hi Hawk,

Thanks for sharing your opinion. My intention was to probe if the change would be welcomed. So far it seems the proposal in any shape would not fly with too many gamers.

Is everything perfect. No. But the game has been here since 1996. Says something about the game engine.

Agreed. But does it mean any proposals for modifications should be dropped? It would we a pity if a game could not evolve. This would mean it is unlikely its lifetime will be extended as it will not appeal to new gamers.

The randomness would not have to implemented as I proposed. But I feel one could select the primary target of their choisc and any unused firing SP could go towards firing at next secondary target of choice. So no "randomness" is necessary and it can solve the issue I highlighted.

And the last thing, your post did convince me not too carry on actively encouraging people to join in the discussion ( if someone will pick it up again I am more than keen to carry on discussion). It is not because you asking to leave the direct fire alone, but because I feel we are starting to go towards personal taste. You clearly say yo totally understand my point, but like the direct fire as is. I do not want to go the route of personal preferences as I feel the discussion looses the merit and is taken over by emotions. I think good example is EA which although implemented -then changed as optional rule- was warmly welcomed by some and hated by others. Again EA off or on assault rules are still an abstract of a battlefield. Better or worse - personal tastes aside - but it did not stop it being implemented.

Thanks to everyone who took time in sharing your thought and comments and if anyone feels they have something to add I will be happy to renew the discussion



Pawel

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Thanks for sharing your opinion. My intention was to probe if the change would be welcomed. So far it seems the proposal in any shape would not fly with too many gamers.

I don't think enough people have weighed in on this topic to jump to that conclusion.

But does it mean any proposals for modifications should be dropped?

No, nor did I suggest such a thing.

It would we a pity if a game could not evolve.

It has evolved and I would say by in large for the better. But one can take eveloution of a game too far. One of the best games ever created was Squad Leader. It evolved until it morphed in to Advanced Squal Leader. ASL while as evolved and detailed as any boardgame game became almost unplayable do to its complexity.

This would mean it is unlikely its lifetime will be extended as it will not appeal to new gamers.

I am not sure how much an IGO / UGO game will appeal to new (and most likely younger) gamers. The game has basically been extended by the players who have played it since 1996.

The randomness would not have to implemented as I proposed. But I feel one could select the primary target of their choisc and any unused firing SP could go towards firing at next secondary target of choice. So no "randomness" is necessary and it can solve the issue I highlighted.

Interesting but filled with complex problems. For example you shoot at a 1 SP PZ MK IVH at 3:1 and get a result of losing 2 SP. If the hex contains a 1 SP PZ V and a 1 SP VIb well now the original firing unit does not have a 3:1 on either tank, in fact on the PZ VIb it does not have a 2:1 attack. The programing would be a nightmare and I am not sure the current game engine can handle it.

And the last thing, your post did convince me not too carry on actively encouraging people to join in the discussion ( if someone will pick it up again I am more than keen to carry on discussion).

I never asked you to stop. You asked for opinions and I gave mine.

It is not because you asking to leave the direct fire alone, but because I feel we are starting to go towards personal taste.

Seems that way to me. If you ask someone theit opinion on an aspect of the game, their answer will be reflective of their personal taste.

You clearly say yo totally understand my point, but like the direct fire as is.

Yes I did.

I do not want to go the route of personal preferences as I feel the discussion looses the merit and is taken over by emotions.

You can't dicuss the game without personal prefernces. Your starting this thread would be because of your personal preference. You can discuss the game and your personal preferences without being emotional.

I think good example is EA which although implemented -then changed as optional rule- was warmly welcomed by some and hated by others. Again EA off or on assault rules are still an abstract of a battlefield. Better or worse - personal tastes aside - but it did not stop it being implemented.

Agreed. In the end though it was made optional. So the player of the game can decide if they want it on or off. Which happens to be my posion on any modification. If it is optional then I am more than happy to have it. If not then I must seriously question the modification. That would apply to any modification whether I liked it or not.

Thanks to everyone who took time in sharing your thought and comments and if anyone feels they have something to add I will be happy to renew the discussion

Well thanks for bring up this topic, it was a good read and all.

Thanx!

Hawk

[PawelM]

I am not familiar with detailed implementation of direct fire, i.e.
did not write the code fot it nor have the access to it. However I can
make a guess there is already mechanics in the game which with little modification would allow to implement my proposal (assuming there is a desire to do this). The analysis below is based on some guesses and if Jason or anyone else can point out any missed assumption I would need to re-think it.

Currently the attacker can select multiple units and fire with all of
them "at the same time" (say 3 attackers A1,A2 and A3). I am assuming there is some queue of attackers created and then a fire action is executed one by one with new attack:defense ratio and separate dice
roll considered.This could be used for my idea as a solution with
potentially least changes required and with some "pre-" and
"post-processing" required on top of existing direct fire mechanics.

"Pre-processing" would involve mainly "splitting" a single firing unit
into "virtual" 1SP size units for the purpose of the direct fire
action. This would mean the unit could be considered then analogically
to the multiple platoon queue. If we have a 3SP attacker, we would
split it in 4x1SP attackers for the purpose of the direct fire result
evaluation. There would be number of other things to do at this stage,
for instance disrupted unit or unit short of ammo would have to be
represented accordingly with number of "virtual unit" number
reflecting that. Also if there is a commander each virtual single SP
unit would have to have the command modifier added with the commander
"paying" only single fire action to keep it sensible. There might be
number of other things happening here which I did not think of, but I
hop you guys get the idea. Next step is to carry out fire using the
queue of single SP units, same way as multiple platoons firing
currently. If the the target has not been eliminated or retreated and
all "virtual" 1SP unit fired then there will be no difference in the
outcome from what you get with the current mechanics. However if this
is not the case extra code would be required to deal with it.

Lets say  out of 4x1SP attackers (created from 1x4SP unit) first three
achieved "-1SP"/"no effect"/ "-1SP". If we assume after suffering
second "1SP" loss the target is eliminated. If we were dealing with a
direct fire from 4 separate platoons this would mean the 4th platoon
would not fire, i.e. would not have used up any APs. Then here is
where I see my proposal kicking in. The fourth "virtual attacker"
(e.g. spare gun in AT batter etc) still has not fired. If there is no
more targets in the same hex then similarly the fire action ends here
and proceeds exactly the same way as it would normally. Understandably
it will not result in "real" master unit saving any APs due to the
fact 1SP did not fired, as this would be silly. However if there are
targets in the SAME hex which are VISIBLE to the attacker, then the
attacker should have an option to fire it. The fire could be carried
out automatically if there is just one target meeting the criteria
(i.e. in the same hex and visible to the attacker). If there is a
number of suitable target a a fire dialog similar to the current fire
dialog should appear to allow the secondary to be selected. And then
well fire with remaining SP(s) at the second target. I think it would
make sense to limit number of these attacking SP "carry overs", i.e.
allow this only for 1 or 2 more targets after the primary. Say if by
any chance primary target is eliminated and the secondary target is
eliminated and there are still firing SPs available one could stop
after secondary target is eliminated or allow one more target to be
fired at. Such fine tuning could be done during the testing phase to
see what is best.

Another thing about which I cannot make up my mind (and hope to hear
some feedback on) is if the "unused" firing points should be allowed
for carry over if the primary target is retreated. I think to keep it
consistent they should but I am not 100% sure about this one.

Does this proposal appeal to anyone?  I am not claiming I have covered
every possible scenario here, but I treat it as a presentation of
principle. I think with input from other more experienced gamers  with
better game mechanics knowledge it could be worked on to fill in the
gaps.

PS: Hopefully my elaboration was not clear only to me and I managed to
keep it clear for others too :)

sorry for the formatting, but I used my phone and it is not the best device. :)