sighting ranges

[Zarel]

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!

HAPMA doesn't explain why a flying unit can see across 8 hexes of swamp, but not even 1 hex of chasm (Fast Sylph/Shyde). And WINR is no reason to have weird visibility rules. What, light moves at the speed of a unit's travels? That would cause a bunch of relativistic complications that no one talks about! Lack of realism is fine, but Wesnoth should at least be internally consistent.

FABATA is a valid issue, of course.

[blob]

Actually, I must admit that I don't know how the current shroud system developed. Was shroud an initial feature, or added later? I have difficulties imagining that a bunch of people sat around a table discussing how shroud would work in the most fun way, and that they came up with the geniune idea that units should be able to see through mountains but not across a river or chasm for the sake of a "stylistic choice". For me, it seems like the current system was arrived at more due to a reason of implementational convenience than choice. There are other KISS ways though than to equal movement cost with sight cost.

The FAQ mentions a lot of things not worth discussing anymore because final choices have been made due to developers' preference. As the shroud system is not on that list, am I assuming correctly that it is still open for suggestions? Or is it a settled thing just because for some people, it suits their faction's advantage in the way it is?

[HomerJ]

The FAQ mentions a lot of things not worth discussing anymore because final choices have been made due to developers' preference. As the shroud system is not on that list, am I assuming correctly that it is still open for suggestions? Or is it a settled thing just because for some people, it suits their faction's advantage in the way it is?

The problem might be that changing anything in this sighting range thing would mess up balance so it won't get changed even if we figure out a perfect/internally consistent/KISS approved/stylish way for it to work.

HAPMA doesn't explain why a flying unit can see across 8 hexes of swamp, but not even 1 hex of chasm (Fast Sylph/Shyde). And WINR is no reason to have weird visibility rules. What, light moves at the speed of a unit's travels? That would cause a bunch of relativistic complications that no one talks about! Lack of realism is fine, but Wesnoth should at least be internally consistent.

Ahhhh, c'mon, they are fairies! It's magic of course.


Greetz
HomerJ

[CMaster]

To provide a rationale for the current system, I believe the reason is not of technical nature but depends on the gameplay: A unit should be able to see what it can do in its turn, otherwise tactical planning would be hampered quite severely.

That said, it should be clear that the sighting range must not be smaller than the movement range.

Introducing a system with sight independent of the seeing unit and comparison with the current system would be less KISS in my eyes than simply adding a system of sight costs and sight points. Why? Because it wouldn't introduce new principles, it would simply decouple movement and sight, using the same principles for both. This is definitely more KISS than introducing unit classes like "flying", "walking" and "swimming", each with different sight restrictions.

I agree, that the unability to see across a chasm or deep channel is really strange. However the ability to see around corners in a cave is just as strange, and that can't be changed without violating the rule mentioned above. So I think, even though we may not like it, we just have to live with WINR and sight dependent on movement.

[blob]

From that point of view, I don't understand why sight doesn't simply cost 1 point per hex, regardless of the terrain. This would mean that every unit had a simple circle of visibility around its center, and terrain didn't obstruct. This would still add a strategic element because you could only see units that were in your proximity, namely within (and a little beyond) the movement range.

But, the current system DOES factor in terrain, and there has to be a point to that. Obviously, you WANT terrain to obstruct visibility in some way, which does add more strategic value to the whole idea of shroud. Now, it only narrows down to the choice of which terrain impacts more and which less - and the choice that mountains do less and rivers more is just beyond my comprehension. I would actually like having shroud scenarios every once in a while - e.g. slipping through a mountain valley undetected while the enemy is behind the other side of the mountain. At the moment, we can play the same kind of game - just with chasms and rivers taking the role of mountains and hills, and vice versa.

Presumably, as everyone has been happy about that for the past half decade, it wouldn't make too much sense if I suggested something different now, so I best leave it at this.

[Eskon]

My rationale is that this isn't actually about sight, but recon. Faster units can do more of it, but of course they can only recon squares as easily as they could move through it.

[Yoyobuae]

Why not just understand it like this:
It a rule of the game. Players are supposed to learn the rules and follow them, not question them.

The raison d'être of these rules is to provide for an appropiate environment for a fun game to exist in.

As it is, having units to see only as much as they can move + 1 hex means that from the idle position, it is possible to try to target any attackable (and thus visible) enemies for that unit and get to see the damage calculations. This is vital information when planning to attack (or not attack).

That justifies at least the current range of sight. But why not see across rivers and such? That can only mean extra sight range on some situation. More sight = less fog.

I don't really see giving away these extra hexes of sight as necesarily a good thing. It denies some of the previously existing strategies (hiding flying units beyond water barriers). Yet I don't see it providing any particular improvement in exchange, only bit of "realism".

The "Show enemy moves/best moves" facilities provide excellent feedback about the opponents sight, because of the easy correlation of reachable hexes -> visible hexes. Introducing differences between the two would destroy this. Adding a extra "Show enemy sight" function would be a solution, but also feature bloat.

Also, these changes affect flying units a bit more than any other. Maybe it might raise a few small balance issues. Even so, faction balance is something not to be tampered with so easily. I mean, when the few necesary balance changes for 1.8 are so slight, along the lines of +4 XP for level up (Orc assasin), even the slightest balance change needs a very good reason supporting it.

Finally, I'm talking from a purely competitive MP perspective. I haven't touched campaigns so far.

[styles1005]

I'm probably necroing but:

HAPMA! Really, if hexes are miles across, then a unit should only be able to see to the hex next to it while sitting in one place. Thus, they can see only as far as they can send advance scouts from that unit in each direction that turn, plus one.

[Eskon]

As I said two posts before - recon distance! And of course I would have to say you're definitely right