sighting ranges

[wilful]

Hello, I have been looking though the manuals trying to find sighting ranges for various units, but cannot find anything on the matter. Is this available somewhere?

[thespaceinvader]

Sight range is movement range +1 hex.

[Tonepoet]

Essentially meaning as far out as you can potentially move plus a hex. If the areas overlap, you don't get bonus vision. I think this factors in movement costs too, since the shape of the fog sometimes seems not to conform to purely hexagonal shapes, although I'm uncertain myself. I don't think about it too often.

If that is indeed the case, I've got some questions of my own: Do hexes remain shrouded until the full movement cost is covered or is partial credit counted? If partial credit is counted, is the +1 vision added in after the rounding or as a part of the initial cost?

[wilful]

thanks people - that should make 'Hide and seek' in the liberty campaign a lot easier.

BTW, I really did look though the manuals, I think it may not be there - perhaps it should be added?

[Caphriel]

Tonepoet, sight range is anywhere the unit could actually move to from its current location if given full MP, plus 1 hex. So it does take movement costs into account, fractional MP remaining round down (just like with normal movement), and moving forward and updating the shroud/fog does let you see more.

[wilful]

I'm still finding hide and seek quite difficult, curse it.

[Zarel]

Tonepoet, sight range is anywhere the unit could actually move to from its current location if given full MP, plus 1 hex. So it does take movement costs into account, fractional MP remaining round down (just like with normal movement), and moving forward and updating the shroud/fog does let you see more.

Which makes it quite silly in some situations, such as being unable to see across chasms, etc. It might be better if terrain had separate sight/move costs...

[Tonepoet]

Thanks Caphriel, it's good to have the reassurance of knowing exactly how it works as opposed to just having a vague idea.

To Zarel, while I can see how it'd make more logical sense, I doubt the costs themselves would vary often enough if you wanted units to have sight advantages the way they do now. If you didn't and wanted to make it a fixed cost like 1 over flats, 2 through forests and hills 'n so on, then you'd probably have equally silly instances of gryphons not being able to see past mountains despite undoubtably being able to zoom straight above them 'n such. It's probably just best left as is, if not only for simplicity's sake.

[thespaceinvader]

Yes. Separate sight and visual ranges have been suggested previously, but KISS comes into play - there would need to be a lot of extra work for minimal extra benefit.

[Caphriel]

It does seem a little silly that most units can't see across a stream, but Wesnoth is Not Realistic. The current system works, despite not being immediately intuitive. The solution is probably a better explanation of fog/shroud in the tutorial, because I've run across a lot of players who misunderstood how the system worked (and one who didn't believe me and thought that units could only see hexes they could actually get to until I played a game with him and demonstrated that a totally surrounded unit could still see.)

[blob]

How about a compromise, then?

The current system uses movement cost to determine which fields are visible, plus one field. The basic flaw is, as pointed out, that low terrain types like deep water and chasms block visibility just because the unit can't move onto the field. At the same time, it permits seeing through high terrain such as mountains if the unit can walk on that terrain. A system simple system such as 1 field per flatland, 2 per forest, and 3 per mountains is generally better, I think, but does not take aerial units into account, so that a Gryphon could still not see beyond forests or mountains even though it should have superior sight.

One could also argue that movement cost equals sight cost is not so bad for certain occasions. For example, the Elves are masters of the woods, so one could expect them to have more sensitive eyes through the thickets where other units unfamiliar with the terrain would just see trees. Similarily, at least for simplicity, one could say that Dwarves, which are home in the mountains, should excel in their ability to see in that terrain where other units would simply be disoriented through their lack of experience with the terrain.

As a compromise, the current system could be left virtually unchanged, with one modification: To determine the sight cost, use:

1) either the movement cost for the terrain depending on the unit,
2) or a built-in value depending solely on the terrain,

whichever is smaller. The built-in values could then look like this (to roughly reflect the terrain height):

1 - Cave, Coastal Reef, Deep Water, Flat, Frozen, Impassable, Sand, Shallow Water, Unwalkable
2 - Castle, Forest, Hills, Mushroom Grove, Swamp, Village
3 - Mountains

Examples:
A unit would usually have a sight cost of 2 for forest, but for Elves, the cost is only 1 because the movement cost is only 1.
A unit would usually have a sight cost of 3 for a mountain, but being a Gryphon, the cost is only 1 due to movement cost being 1.
Any unit who cannot walk on Chasm or Deep Water (movement cost: 99) would still be able to see past them, because the built-in value is only 1.

This should be easy to implement because it "only" involves comparing the movement cost of the unit for the terrain against the built-in sight cost for the terrain, and then taking the smaller value. Benefits: Units familiar with the terrain (i.e. low movement cost) keep their advantage also for sight, while units incapable of walking on a particular terrain or are too slow to walk on it could still see more or less unhindered past it.

I think that this small change would overall make maps with shroud more interesting because it would start making some sense, while being unable to see past rivers is simply unfair - an Elvish Fighter cannot, but a Merman Fighter can, even though both are walking. Or, an Elvish Fighter sees only hindered across Shallow Water (movement cost: 3), while an Elvish Shyde (movement cost: 1) can see without problems just because she is hovering a bit over the ground. Currently, this is just incomprehensible.

[ParadiseCity]

I think that this small change would overall make maps with shroud more interesting because it would start making some sense, while being unable to see past rivers is simply unfair

Quite the contrary, I think it would be more interesting the way it is, seeing as it makes scouts and water/flying units more useful. It is simply more of a style choice than one of logic.

And while I'm sure you did not mean any offense by saying it is "unfair," you may want to refrain from saying that, as it invites flaming.

P.S. I like your name

[Yoyobuae]

As a Drakes only player, no thanks.

Hiding my flying units beyond rivers is a slight but nice advantage I'd like to keep in the few cases that it is possible.

[Zarel]

Quite the contrary, I think it would be more interesting the way it is, seeing as it makes scouts and water/flying units more useful. It is simply more of a style choice than one of logic.

And while I'm sure you did not mean any offense by saying it is "unfair," you may want to refrain from saying that, as it invites flaming.

P.S. I like your name

I dunno - I mention it because it's frustrating, in a campaign, not to be able to see across a chasm that's only one tile wide. Especially if I have sylphs and shydes, which presumably would be able to float high enough to see over them. :/

I can understand that it's a bit late, and such a major change that it could influence game balance, though... Although it's kind of counterintuitive right now, being able to fly over a river not only to avoid being reached, but also to avoid being seen...

[HomerJ]

I dunno - I mention it because it's frustrating, in a campaign, not to be able to see across a chasm that's only one tile wide. Especially if I have sylphs and shydes, which presumably would be able to float high enough to see over them. :/

Finally a chance to run wild with acronyms again:
HAPMA then WINR and in addition (I'm not sure how severe a change would be to balance but) FABATA!

Greetz
HomerJ