Should invisibility be scrapped?

[Disto]

FoW is sightly let down by the way that it tells you if it spots a new unit, this means you know it's there and can prepare for it

[Woodwizzle]

Just my 2 cents. I'm pro invisiblity. Its a very fun feature, and can be used tactically defensively very well. Its a shame that the AI has trouble with it. But I prefer multiplayer play usually without the AI so thats not an issue for me.

[elscouta]

I played against humans using damaged units as lures and woses to trap his units when they try to kill my lures. It's quite fun (to do at least) and gave me the victory. So yes, i think it adds strategy.

[tigrezno]

Invisibility and ambush can be scrapped. I agree with EP, some elf units should have regeneration "only" in forest (woses should not go away from forest ) and most of the undead units should have regeneration "only" at night

This would make elves more forest addict and undead more night addict.

[Darth Fool]

I enjoy invisible units and FoW. Most of the problems you described with invisibility that seem to be potential maintenance nightmares seem to revolve around the fact that a units movement is interupted by running into an invisible unit. While I enjoy this feature and am glad that you plan on keeping it around, if you do decide to eliminate it, I would suggest a weakening of invisibility instead. My suggestion is that "invisible" units are only invisible in the sense that they can not be seen if no unit can move next to them, as if they carry their own fog of war. This would eliminate the problems of needing a special case in the AI for dealing with interupted unit movement, and turn the problem of invisible units (for both humans and AI) into the same problem as FoW. It would still maintain some advantage for invisibility, at least for relatively fast invisible units. It would encourage having scouts, perhaps even more than now, as they would give you advanced warning, while not having to have any new special ability. It takes away some of the surprise of an ambush, but still allows for games where the strategy revolves, in part, around the manipulation of incomplete knowledge. I do prefer to keep invisibilty as is, but if at a later date, you decide that it must go, please consider this alternative.

[quartex]

Invisibility and fog of war add to the strategy of the game. Sure, without them, the game is much more like a board game, where you always know where your opponent's units are. But fog opf war requires you to scout, and invisibility makes you be careful in forests or at night. Both essentially allow you to be surprised, which is a good thing, not a bad thing.

[Shade]

While I personally dislike FOW I have a simple solution, I don't play games under FOW As far as invisibility goes I like it- If it has to get the Axe maybe the portable FOW as suggested earlier...

[Invisible Philosopher]

My suggestion is that "invisible" units are only invisible in the sense that they can not be seen if no unit can move next to them, as if they carry their own fog of war. This would eliminate the problems of needing a special case in the AI for dealing with interupted unit movement, and turn the problem of invisible units (for both humans and AI) into the same problem as FoW.

In that case the AI would know exactly where your invisible units are. The AI ignores/sees through fog of war.

[Elvish_Pillager]

Invisibility and fog of war add to the strategy of the game. Sure, without them, the game is much more like a board game, where you always know where your opponent's units are. But fog opf war requires you to scout, and invisibility makes you be careful in forests or at night. Both essentially allow you to be surprised, which is a good thing, not a bad thing.

No, it is ABSOLUTELY a bad thing. Don't just say "Our way is good and yours is bad", it doesn't make for good conversation.

[Circon]

<chutzpah>

No, it is ABSOLUTELY a bad thing.

Black and white, eh?

Don't just say "Our way is good and yours is bad", it doesn't make for good conversation.

Oh, so now the game is NOT in black and white?

Pro invisibility here. Since EP disagrees with it and EP is always wrong, it's good.</chutzpah>

[scott]

No, it is ABSOLUTELY a bad thing. Don't just say "Our way is good and yours is bad", it doesn't make for good conversation.

I see nothing in TWP about strategy being completely deterministic but tactics having randomness. Shroud, fog, and invisibility all remove a level of determinism from strategy, which makes formulating strategy more fun (but harder). Since shroud/fog are optional and invisilibity is rare, strategy is still appropriately deterministic, much more so than tactics where your damage easily ranges between 0 and max. While it may be a source of bugs and ineffective AI, let those be the reasons for taking it out, not because it's not fun or adds anything to the game. We should review why invisibility was added to the game in the first place (fun and adding something to the game). There is a good deal in TWP about moving forward and not sideways with endless rule change debates (based on merits, not practical issues I assume). Thus, if taking out invisibility helps the game move forward by making the code easier to maintain, then I support its removal. Otherwise I like what it adds to the game by adding a tiny element of randomness to the strategy. Since the bugs seem to be getting worked out, Jetryl's idea of asking around for AI help is a good first step.

[Dave]

I think that invisibility and fog changes the type of strategy used in the game, much more than adding or removing strategy.

With no fog or invisibility, the game is all about trying to out-maneuver your enemy, based on seeing their movements and strategy. Each player has to carefully calculate which sets of moves will give them the highest chance of winning the game.

With fog or invisibility added, some of the basic strategy of seeing how your opponent's forces are arrayed is removed, and replaced with having to plan your strategy around educated guesses as to what your opponent is doing. This guesswork is a type of strategy in its own though -- trying to outmaneuver an opponent who you have limited knowledge of, balancing limiting their knowledge of your forces with trying to obtain knowledge of them.

Now the basic premise of the game is far more geared toward the first type of strategy, but I can't see any fundamental reason not to support the second as well, as long as it's not a maintenance nightmare.

I do quite like Darth Fool's idea for invisibility. We could consider that. With such a weakened invisibility, perhaps the Shadow could be invisible at all times except during the day.

Now I realize that on either side of the 'debate', there are some people who don't find the other kind of strategy interesting. Some people who like having complete knowledge don't like fog of war. Some people who like guessing what their opponent is up to detest not having fog of war. I think it is important that both sides recognize that either way of playing is a legitimate strategic game: perhaps not a game that they like, of course, but that lots of people do like.

Having a debate about what has 'more strategy' is pointless and meaningless. Few, if any, will change their opinions, and both sides will insist that the way they prefer to play has 'more strategy'.

Frankly, removing invisibility, or reducing its complexity may be moving forward -- by simplifying the game mechanics; although it does have a feel of moving sideways to it, so I am dubious about doing it. Removing fog of war is moving sideways at best, and backwards at worst.

David

[MRhe]

Invisibility and FoW should definitely be kept, in my opinion. I only enjoy playing these sorts of games with FoW, because I think it is far more challenging and enjoyable. I think invisibility is a very nice feature and although it's always annoying to get ambushed by a Wose in the woods, I thoroughly enjoy it as an in-game feature.

[Darth Fool]

My suggestion is that "invisible" units are only invisible in the sense that they can not be seen if no unit can move next to them, as if they carry their own fog of war. This would eliminate the problems of needing a special case in the AI for dealing with interupted unit movement, and turn the problem of invisible units (for both humans and AI) into the same problem as FoW.

In that case the AI would know exactly where your invisible units are. The AI ignores/sees through fog of war.

Yes, this idea would still require some extra code to make the AI ignore hidden units, even while it does not ignore fogged units. The former is no worse for maintenance than what it does now with invisible, but better in that when it decides to move a unit, it can be sure that it will get there, which to me seems biggest maintenance problem with the bugs Dave mentioned. Instead of being a way to surprise the AI (which is hard to write good AI against) the invisibilty feature would only prevent long-range targeting of a unit, and underestimation of the size of a group when grouping, both of which the current invisibility already does. If/when someone adds features to the AI that enable it to deal reasonably with invisible units by keeping track of the last known location, one could then consider making the AI truly fog-(un)aware.

[Disto]

I like shround as you need to scout out the areas but fog of war is harsh, it can ruin someones game. I was playing a multiplayer v someone. Rebels v Rebels. If i hadn't tried to flank his attacking force with a smaller force he would of won the game. Imagine you are doing really well. Then a force appears behind you and creams you. How is that going to make you feel? Happy? glad? No it's going to annoy you. But if there wasn't any FoW and they cream you then you know its you're fault and it was your tactics no just someone slips a few units behind you.