LoS and Jungle or Forest

[Vampgelus]

Following things bother me a little...

A scout sits on a hill, let's say it's a hill with jungle on it. In the tile to the left, there is an enemy warrior, sitting in the jungle. The scout sees the warrior... how ? Think about it

Same thing for a plane flying over a jungle with some infantry in it...

So, what about this :
- Ground units can never see other units in the jungle, exept both (the seeing and the seen unit) are on roads and even then, only 1 tile LoS as usual.
- Air units can only see units on a road if the tile is jungle (or forest)

Siege units and tanks would be always visible (or simply couldn't go into forest or jungle without a road).

I would like a mod with these features, too bad i'm absolutely not capable of making such a mod by myself

What do you think about this ?

PS : LoS = Line of Sight

[snoopy369]

That would not work for Civ. You'd end up with a far too defensive game.

(Cue Krill...)

[Supr49er]

Originally posted by snoopy369
That would not work for Civ. You'd end up with a far too defensive game.

(Cue Krill...)

[Vampgelus]

sneaking through the jungle for taking the ennemy by surprise is not what i would call defensive. I would encourage harassement strat's more then defensive ones.

[Marcusem78]

While maybe it would be more realistic, for game purposes I DONT like that idea. It would require WAY too many tile-micromanagement issues - such as posting units on the exteriors of all large forested/jungled clumps to avoid armies sneaking thru. A novel idea, but I dont like it.

[johnmcd]

Originally posted by Marcusem78
While maybe it would be more realistic, for game purposes I DONT like that idea. It would require WAY too many tile-micromanagement issues - such as posting units on the exteriors of all large forested/jungled clumps to avoid armies sneaking thru. A novel idea, but I dont like it.

A great mechanism for a tactics game, but probably not for Civ.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Vampgelus
sneaking through the jungle for taking the ennemy by surprise is not what i would call defensive. I would encourage harassement strat's more then defensive ones.

It would mean you have to keep a lot more units 'at home' because of the risk of a surprise attack.

[Vampgelus]

Originally posted by johnmcd


A great mechanism for a tactics game, but probably not for Civ.

I think civ is a game where you can actually put ANYTHING in, because it's already an all'arounder. The deeper the gameplay the better. I'd love to see a Civ V far more complex in warfare matters, the jungle and hills promotions for the unit are a great start for that, but i'd really like to get more of this stuff.

It would mean you have to keep a lot more units 'at home' because of the risk of a surprise attack.

Or you could chop off all the forests and jungles you don't want to have to survey. But anyway, are you seriously watching your borders each turn ? I actually get almost always "surprise attacks" from the AI. But thanks to the high requirements of the "commando" promoton, that's not a big deal.

While maybe it would be more realistic, for game purposes I DONT like that idea. It would require WAY too many tile-micromanagement issues - such as posting units on the exteriors of all large forested/jungled clumps to avoid armies sneaking thru. A novel idea, but I dont like it.

Same thing as for johnmcd, that's what i love about Civ, it's a complex game requirig huge amounts of micromanaging. The more the better IMHO.



This idea came to me when i was actually thinking about the schematic scales of the game compared to the "demography" screen, where you can see that you have 2000 soldiers for a few units only, so you should also keep in mind that the units you see IG are obviously not representing giants far taller then the trees. But this has alwas been my problem with most of the games, i'd like to have a realisticly scaled 4X game...

[Krill]

Nah, what you would do is spam cheap crappy units like warriors in jungles to act as sentry nets for the mid to late game. It wouldn't affect the game that much if properly balanced. But then you would have to chop all of your forest (and jungle), and I'm pretty sure that some people wouldn't like to play like that.

In the early game it would be a very offense orientated game, in fact. Imagine starting in the jungle on an inland sea map, AW on. Anything could approach you through the jungle, 4 chariots or a warrior, who knows. How are you supposed to react?

The reason why this will (or rather should, knowing the devs) never be implemented is that you could end up stumbling onto a unit ina forest and auto attacking it. If you don't auto attack it, then all you have to do is move units onto each tile every turn to iscover where they are (in which case this is just more micromanagement. Sure you want that in the game?)

[patcon]

Originally posted by Krill
The reason why this will (or rather should, knowing the devs) never be implemented is that you could end up stumbling onto a unit ina forest and auto attacking it. If you don't auto attack it, then all you have to do is move units onto each tile every turn to iscover where they are (in which case this is just more micromanagement. Sure you want that in the game?)

You wouldn't necessarily have to auto-attack. Current game mechanics ask you if you want to attack or not when moving into a tile containing a unit you are at peace with.

While this idea would make the game 'more realistic', I don't think I like it. I think of this whole 'seeing adjacent tiles' thing as the result of recon patrols searching the surroundings of the main force.

Taken to its logical extreme, this idea should allow even warring units to occupy the same tile without necessarily having combat. There'd be a random chance that the units would not notice each other, modified by the promotion/type of unit/moving vs stationary/fortified vs not fortified. Only the unit doing the noticing can choose to initiate combat. If both units notice the other guy, then there would be combat or an opportunity to decline combat if you're at peace.

[Vampgelus]

Originally posted by Krill
Nah, what you would do is spam cheap crappy units like warriors in jungles to act as sentry nets for the mid to late game. It wouldn't affect the game that much if properly balanced. But then you would have to chop all of your forest (and jungle), and I'm pretty sure that some people wouldn't like to play like that.

Sentry-nets or mine fields, depending on the point of view...

In the early game it would be a very offense orientated game, in fact. Imagine starting in the jungle on an inland sea map, AW on. Anything could approach you through the jungle, 4 chariots or a warrior, who knows. How are you supposed to react?

You can work the forest or jungle tiles next to your cities, this means citizens "walking around" there. So it would not be a lack of coherence to always give you a LoS on a city's tiles. Even without that simple fact, the reaction should to have roads on these tiles and a unit in your city in order to see what's coming. And i mentioned that some units should not be able to go into a jungle or a forest without a road. Chariots should fit that case. It's actually ridicoulous to be able to move through a jungle with a chariot IMHO. But hey, if you activated AW, you wanted to have a game where you always have to expect attacks, so it's your choice .

The reason why this will (or rather should, knowing the devs) never be implemented is that you could end up stumbling onto a unit ina forest and auto attacking it.

That's the thrill i'm looking for.

If you don't auto attack it, then all you have to do is move units onto each tile every turn to iscover where they are (in which case this is just more micromanagement. Sure you want that in the game?)

I don't like that idea to be honest, but this solution would give scouts and explorers a far more useful place in the game once you have explored your continent (btw becoming a defensive alter-ego to spies). Same thing for the Aztec's UU.

[Vampgelus]

Originally posted by patcon

You wouldn't necessarily have to auto-attack. Current game mechanics ask you if you want to attack or not when moving into a tile containing a unit you are at peace with.

While this idea would make the game 'more realistic', I don't think I like it. I think of this whole 'seeing adjacent tiles' thing as the result of recon patrols searching the surroundings of the main force.

Taken to its logical extreme, this idea should allow even warring units to occupy the same tile without necessarily having combat. There'd be a random chance that the units would not notice each other, modified by the promotion/type of unit/moving vs stationary/fortified vs not fortified. Only the unit doing the noticing can choose to initiate combat. If both units notice the other guy, then there would be combat or an opportunity to decline combat if you're at peace.

Sorry, double-post but i was writing the last one simutaniously to patcon's reply.

Great analysis of what realistic jungle-war would have to be (i didn't think about the "scouts" and "main force" idea, that actually makes sense).

The option to decline combat if you are at peace was so clear to me that i didn't even mention it. I agree of course.

Anyway, the need to notice the other unit seems to be a great idea to me. It could be related to the "sentinel" promotion, making that random event giving this to all your cavalery really awsome. The "sentinel" order could be modified to fit this, so that instead of gaining +5% defense per turn by "fortify" you would gain chances of detection (counter-intelligence with spies?). This would really require a huge amount of micro-managing, i admit that, but i'd like it. It would add a great dimension of tactics to the "war of stacks".

[Willem]

Originally posted by Vampgelus
it's a complex game requirig huge amounts of micromanaging. The more the better IMHO.

You'd be in the minority with that attitude. For most people there's already more than enough micromanagement.

[johnmcd]

Another issue from my point of view with creating more complexity in the game's warfare is that just now the complexity is balanced - ie, ever aspect of warfare is really simple.

If you complicate one element, you really need to complicate everything to ensure combat feels complete within its own parameters. That's not really something I'd much fancy, turns and games take long enough anyway. Make it take much longer by complicating and thus slowing warfare (just thinking time even) and it would be a major disincentive to war!

[Marcusem78]

You could just attribute to the 'seeing' of units in these situations to the intell gathering of scouts and screeners. A axeman unit, for example, will not roam the country side in a vacuum. They will scout out before their positions.