Not enough visibility on Enemy stacks

[Chief Rudiger]

Since BOA i've felt there has been a problem the way you see Enemy stacks, If there is more than one stack in a region you can only see detailed tooltip info on one of them, i.e. the strength of each unit (or division) while the other stacks in the region are only listed as "also here: Second Army *** (500pts)" and "Boston Garrison (18 pts)", for example, even if you have the highest detection level.

Surely you should be able to cycle through the stacks to view detailed info on each, or even be able to view enemy units in the bottom toolbar in the same way as your own. I think it is a shame that you miss so much of the art work by only seeing the enemy generals picture or one small unit graphic if the stack is leaderless. This has improved with the detailed battle result screen but still is not accessible.

You may argue that you shouldn't be able to know so much about your enemy but as long as the info was restricted by Detect level then its not unreasonable to imagine that sufficient patrols have returned with prisoners from each unit for your intelligence branch to have constructed an enemy OOB! Likewise, you would know what each enemy unit looked like, whether they had low/high cohesion (i.e. morale/desertion) and who they were brigaded with.

If there's already a hot key i'm overlooling please let me know!?



PS. I remember playing BOA at some crazy small resolution on my old CRT and not being able to see all the tooltip info on Washington's army stack besieging Boston because it was so full of weak 1/2 element Militia units! Gone are those days now the game has Divisions and Corps and with my 24" wide screen!

[Cat Lord]

I have made your title more explicit. It would be so much easier for us when we skim the forum and decide what we can improve from what we cannot.

Thank you for understanding.

Cat

[lodilefty]

I think that "only" seeing detail on one stack nicely simulates a "screening" situation, where patrols cannot get close to the other stacks.

Also, each region represents a rather large area (hundreds of square miles?), and so a patrol from an adjacent region may never "find" any details on "distant" groups.

..and now, with the advent of aviation , we must also think in terms of how much detail a recon flight can gather beyond "there be dragons here"

hehe, I've told some folks that if you want absolute intelligence on the strength, disposition and location of an opponent, perhaps you should consider Chess!!! (just kidding here )

[Chief Rudiger]

I think that "only" seeing detail on one stack nicely simulates a "screening" situation, where patrols cannot get close to the other stacks.

But having level 5 Detection info on One Corp but not on another doesn't really fit that situation. Perhaps if the Corps had Cav Div or attached Cav units, or anything with a high patrol value i would agree. Besides, isn't it the biggest unit whose info is displayed right now... so its the Corp thats screening the Cav!? If Cav could give a detection "malus" that would be great though.

Also, each region represents a rather large area (hundreds of square miles?), and so a patrol from an adjacent region may never "find" any details on "distant" groups.

True, but if two stacks are in the same region, which often happens, or if you had a high enough detect rating (i.e. an abstraction of Spies, Defectors and Deep Cavalry Patrols) i don't this as being gamey.

..and now, with the advent of aviation , we must also think in terms of how much detail a recon flight can gather beyond "there be dragons here"

Aerial and Signals intelligence should significantly increase your intel picture - like spotting troop concentrations, artillery supply depots or increases in signals/vehicle traffic in the rear. Traditional Cav patrols couldn't stop aerial recce mission making local air supremacy more important.

hehe, I've told some folks that if you want absolute intelligence on the strength, disposition and location of an opponent, perhaps you should consider Chess!!! (just kidding here )

Fundamentally, this engine hides too much beautiful artwork. If i new my drab Red Guards were facing "Colourful" White regiments i might act differently! Added to that, right now all i really know is "his" units are worth 500, but not whether that's 500 rubbish units that will be out of food and wrecked on cohesion if i strategically retreat a bit or whether that 500 is a quality but numerically inferior force which is well provisionned with cohesion bonus units that'll be able to follow me and then easily rout my rabble after one round unless i can get behind some obstacle and get them with ranged units as they approach. See what i'm saying?

Adding this might be too much of a biggie but its something i think the engine needs to do, especially for VGN where you'll be meeting all types of people but not having much of a chance to appreciate zulu tribal piercings before just crunching the numbers with the aid of a gatling gun. Adding something like this might make up a bit for the lack of battlefield control (not something i want, but i know others do) as it will make the series less like a numbers game.

[Chief Rudiger]

I believe there is also a bug in that when viewing the "tooltip" info on enemy stacks the division names are instead those of the first element in that division.

For example, what in the bottom bar would appear as "1st Division" commanded by XX General Joe composing 1st, 2nd 3rd etc Regiments would appear in the tooltip info as XX General Joe (1st Regiment) rather than XX General Joe (1st Division).

This can be dangerously misleading when trying to assess the enemies strength as having a certain detect rating (but not one high enough to reveal strengths) misleads you into thinking this is just a unit with an embedded General, like the Hessians or Indians in BOA.

[GlobalExplorer]

I agree! This info should at least contain the approximate strength of a stack. Strength could be separated in classes (i.e. for example 1000, 10.000, 25.000, 100.000).

[Chief Rudiger]

@ Devs

Can you confirm the tool tip issue i report as a bug?

Fundamentally, this engine hides too much beautiful artwork. If i new my drab Red Guards were facing "Colourful" White regiments i might act differently! Added to that, right now all i really know is "his" units are worth 500, but not whether that's 500 rubbish units that will be out of food and wrecked on cohesion if i strategically retreat a bit or whether that 500 is a quality but numerically inferior force which is well provisionned with cohesion bonus units that'll be able to follow me and then easily rout my rabble after one round unless i can get behind some obstacle and get them with ranged units as they approach. See what i'm saying?

Adding this might be too much of a biggie but its something i think the engine needs to do, especially for VGN where you'll be meeting all types of people but not having much of a chance to appreciate zulu tribal piercings before just crunching the numbers with the aid of a gatling gun. Adding something like this might make up a bit for the lack of battlefield control (not something i want, but i know others do) as it will make the series less like a numbers game.

Also, will you reply to my post as quoted above?

[Chief Rudiger]

bump

No?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Clovis]

We are considering your ideas, but the reply isn't simple, as it's just a basic and old AGE feature some likes ( I would say many) and others obviously not . Such a change have to be studied in any of its numerous side-effects before we could produce a reply.

For my own, I remember always this sentence: " Wargamers would be surprised about how few are the details of intelligence reports "

[Chief Rudiger]

Not a bug. It's been this way since they eliminated Divisional HQ units a few years back and PBEM players like the feature since it helps them with intelligence deception. AGEOD should leave the tooltip as is.

_______________________________________

Sent from my Droid X using Swype.

Gray_Lensman/Clovis,

In AACW yours and the enemies divisions were named "1st Division" etc in the tooltips, now they are named after one of the sub units. Clovis, how isn't this a bug?!

(PS. comparison image attached if anyone without AACW wants to look)

Clovis,

I understand the arguement about deception but i don't think the AGE engine is properly modelling it at present. The stronger stack should be hidden not the weaker. This "cloaking"/"shielding" feature could be tied to detect values, especially now you can have a special detect value of 6 using aerial recconaisance!

I think i've made this arguement pretty clearly a few post earlier and similar to my suggestion about a generic infantry replacement element I'd love to see this as an additional feature as an option which can be turned on and off.

For that reason I don't think the additional option set OFF as default, for looking at enemy unit graphics (or even stats, depending on detect value), would effect "a basic and old AGE feature some likes ( I would say many)" or detract from the game in any way. Those that don't like it don't have to turn it on!

If it weren't for the art work i don't think i'd play this series. Is anyone else thinking along the same lines as me?

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Franciscus]

Gray_Lensman/Clovis,

In AACW yours and the enemies divisions were named "1st Division" etc in the tooltips, now they are named after one of the sub units. Clovis, how isn't this a bug?!

(PS. comparison image attached if anyone without AACW wants to look)

Clovis,

I understand the arguement about deception but i don't think the AGE engine is properly modelling it at present. The stronger stack should be hidden not the weaker. This "cloaking"/"shielding" feature could be tied to detect values, especially now you can have a special detect value of 6 using aerial recconaisance!

I think i've made this arguement pretty clearly a few post earlier and similar to my suggestion about a generic infantry replacement element I'd love to see this as an additional feature as an option which can be turned on and off.

For that reason I don't think the additional option set OFF as default, for looking at enemy unit graphics (or even stats, depending on detect value), would effect "a basic and old AGE feature some likes ( I would say many)" or detract from the game in any way. Those that don't like it don't have to turn it on!

If it weren't for the art work i don't think i'd play this series. Is anyone else thinking along the same lines as me?

+ 1

I will quote myself in the AACW discussion:

(...)

Nevertheless, guys, if a game's feature is counter-intuitive and goes against common wargame's rules, one may ask if:
a) it's wad
or
b) it's a bug (an old one, but a bug)

If it's wad, I may disagree with the designer's decision, and would like to hear Pocus word about this. I am not asking for changes in AACW, those times are gone, IMHO. But this manner of referring to Divisions and Brigades in the tooltips is also present in RUS (matbe in RoP, I didn't check) and maybe in PoN, and again IMHO should be revised.

If it's a bug, again, not in AACW, but in the newer games at least it should be corrected.

And please, don't talk to me about deception. FOW exists for this. What is the historical parallel of spotting an enemy brigade and reporting it as a lone general ? What is the use of spotting a Division and reporting the first (not the best, not the biggest, not the most famous, or even the front one) Brigade that the opposing player decided to merge with the Division commander ?

Pocus ?

(although I do not play this series only for the artwork )

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted