Slitherine

I just had a thought that I openly admit is a bit off the deep end and would be “challenging” to program the game mechanics to do this. Also, I see this would definitely be an option that should be turned on or off in the game, depending upon the player’s choice. However, I also realize that this is most likely something not going to occur in TA (or maybe any game) now or possibly ever.

All the same – I thought I would share it because I think it would make the game play that much closer to real situations. I just hope I can explain it well enough that anyone reading this will be able to understand what I am thinking.


Team Assault already has true Line Of Sight – and that is a claim that sticks in all ways. But I’m looking for “true” Fog Of War. I hope that I can explain what I mean by True FoW, and how it differs from true LOS and why I think it would bring more realism in a game. Therefore, I better set down some basics first.

Below is how LOS works as of now. I’m going to strip off the “true” part to simplify the LOS mechanics. (The only real difference between LOS and true LOS is that normal LOS is for the entire squad and true LOS goes down to each member of the squad.) You can see that squad A can see the enemy squad where as squad B cannot because it is behind a wall that it cannot see over and therefore squad B’s LOS is blocked.
So when it is Squad A’s turn, they can shoot at the enemy squad. And when it is Squad B’s turn they cannot shot at them since they do not have LOS. Simple enough and I’m sure everyone already knew this part – but I wanted to make sure we started on common ground with this.


Now going with the “true” FoW idea.
Below is how the playing field would look when it is Squad A’s turn. Squad A can see and can shot at the enemy squad. They also can see their comrades in squad B. Nothing out of the ordinary here.


Now it is Squad B’s turn with true FoW. Below is how the playing field would now look. They can see squad A but not the enemy squad because of the wall they are behind blocks the LOS. Sounds just like LOS – and it is more or less that – except for the enemy squad is not even on the screen to be seen.


But….
…. because they can see the allied squad A – and squad A can see the enemy – then squad B knows about the enemy squad and their location. They still cannot shoot at them since they do not have LOS. But they could lob a grenade over the wall in to the enemy squad.
Sounds exactly like LOS so far doesn’t it? But now is where it changes….


…. if that solid wall went farther, then below is what Squad B would see. The playing field is now just squad B since it is their turn and they cannot see squad A or the enemy squad. There by, if they still try to lob that grenade over the wall at the enemy squad – they would have no idea where to aim it to land. And thus I believe a more accurate representation of FoW.
And the only reason why they could know about the enemy in the above (not so long wall) example is because squads can signal to each other – as long as, they can see each other. Or if they cannot see each other, but both squads had a radio, then squad A could radio Squad B that there is an enemy squad on the other side of the wall and to lob a grenade 15 meters to their 11 o-clock and thus hitting their target.



Hopefully I have explained this at least well enough that you can understand what I’m trying to get at.
As always – I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

Interesting idea, I really like it in theory and it would be a really cool feature for a game

For Team Assault however (and most turn based strategy game as they usually are designed). The problem I see is that the player actually play as both (all) his squads in the game, as their commander, knowing what they know. He does not play one of them at the time, not knowing what the other squads know while using another. This limitation is field of view/battlefield information would apply an additional game challenge in the aspect of remembering stuff - since if you do remember where the enemy is since your previous activation, you can still attempt to lob grenades on them. I believe it would just frustrate player that you take away information that they had a second before, but can still have if they remember it - even if it is more realistic.

This feature would however open up for interesting situations where an enemy squad makes actions between your two squads. I can agree with that. But I don't think it would weigh up for the frustration. And also, it would be quite boring, seeing nothing but a dark map while none of your squads are activated

In a one-squad-per-player co-op mode (this mode is fictional - don't wanna confuse anybody), I think this feature would be awesome. Really rewarding players that communicate, but myself I would find it annoying when you control the whole force anyway, still knowing what each squad knows.

Thanks for your thoughts!

What you call “frustrating” and “annoying” I call “fun” and “challenging”. But that is fine – and why I said it would have to be an option to be turned on or off at the players choosing.


Co-op MP would be a real nice situation for this. Never even thought of that one, but that would be great to play that.

The biggest issue that I thought of is what do you do when the opponent is activated? What do you show or not show? Or maybe this is when you get the “commander” view that you mentioned and are able to see whatever is happening (as long as there is at least one squad with LOS)?


But like I started my post with – no game would ever put this in because of these issues… but I still think it would be cool to have the option to play like this from time to time.

Yup. I think it would be cool too in the right game. And maybe I find it frustrating only because I have a bad memory ;P

One option for what-to-do-while-your-opponent is taking turns might be to let you keep vision from your last activated squad though, until you activate a new one.

Laxen wrote:Yup. I think it would be cool too in the right game. And maybe I find it frustrating only because I have a bad memory ;P

One option for what-to-do-while-your-opponent is taking turns might be to let you keep vision from your last activated squad though, until you activate a new one.

Not a bad idea at all.


I also thought maybe a map (like there is now in TA) it gives you the basic idea of what is where but not the “in the trenches” detailed knowledge. Sort of what commanders often have – they know the basic layout of troops (allied and enemy) but don’t necessarily know the details of the men on the field. In other words, they normally only know there are two enemy squads in the northeast sector, but don’t know that in those squads are certain kinds of weapons and at the moment one of them is pinned. Whereas the troops on the field tend to have the opposite information.

Probably a much more detailed map, with more features and a full-screen function would be required for such a game

Yes, that should work.

.............. Can you have it done by Christmas?

Haha. No ;P

Well I didn’t say what year – now did I?

Its a nice idea, but I don't see it being plausable without taking away some flexibility in regular play. For instance the code might prevent you from throwing a grenade in a 'blind' area before moving a unit through, etc...


Been playing Skyrim and it has been very fun.

Yes I agree, there are lots of issues with this idea of mine – but if it could be done, I still think it would be closer to actuality and loads of fun to play.


As long as there is a chance to win - the more challenging the better… At least that is the way I like my games. If you don’t lose from time to time, why bother playing?

Oh, Skyrim, that explains why you haven't been around for a while teamgene

A few at the studio plays that at the weekends and nights as well. I haven't dared trying it yet. Need my time at other places right now, and I remember how much time Morrowind cost me

Laxen wrote:Oh, Skyrim, that explains why you haven't been around for a while teamgene

A few at the studio plays that at the weekends and nights as well. I haven't dared trying it yet. Need my time at other places right now, and I remember how much time Morrowind cost me

Didn’t you see the news about Skyrim? It has been proven to shorten your life by at least a year each 30 minutes of play, and will cause a horrible death to the players – whereas Team Assault will extend you life for every minute working or playing on it.
Laxen if you truly care about your Zeal team, you need to get them to stop all activities (including Skyrim) and work even longer hours on TA. Or aren’t you concerned about their health and wellbeing?

Laxen wrote:Oh, Skyrim, that explains why you haven't been around for a while teamgene

A few at the studio plays that at the weekends and nights as well. I haven't dared trying it yet. Need my time at other places right now, and I remember how much time Morrowind cost me

Yeah, I held off due to the price at first, then after seeing some play throughs on youtube had to get it and its worth every penny!

Xerkis: Haha, unfortunately I can't decide what they should do on their weekends

teamgene: I believe you. Maybe I'll buy it for myself on Christmas...

Had to do some lookup on what Skyrim was. Yeah that is a must have.
I don’t know if you technically can call that a FPS, but it is to me. And Oblivion is the only game I play like that. Brings back the old Dungeons & Dragon days.

Besides the obvious (story line, map, etc.) what is different between Oblivion and Skyrim?

character creation is different and you don't have the typical strength, dex, int.... its simplified to magicka, health and stamina. You could call it a fps as archery is tough as you got to be able to aim and the targets don't always stand still. That kind of range is rare though, most of the combat has been up close, though when you fight giants one hit can kill you so you have to do a lot of 'kiting' there. Giants are much tougher than the dragons.

This is all way off topic of this thread – but since I’m the one that created the thread – oh well.


Is there still all the other skills? Like armorer, sneak, blunt and the other 30 or however many there were.

There's a few less skills in Skyrim then in Oblivion, which also had fewer skills then in Morrowind. They keep combining some skills into new skills, making them easier to comprehend. Good sometimes, a bit boring sometimes. But on the other hand, the skills aren't the important part of the Elder Scrolls series in my opinion, it's the giant world and the endless lore to explore.

(Sorry for keeping your thread off topic Xerkis )

Laxen wrote:(Sorry for keeping your thread off topic Xerkis )

I’m fine with it… as long as it’s about a game I’m interested in.


Totally agree with the importance of the “giant world and endless lore to explore” – but for me the skills are a big part too. Very secondary – but still a part of the fun in the game. I think that might be because of the D&D background. I used to play that all the time as a teen. And with that the main fun was the adventure, but “skills” were a major facture in it.

I assume Skyrim is available for PS3. This just might have to be a Christmas gift.