Suggestions

[RebBugler]

Bottom line here, you want to be able to conceal your troops from enemy detection when their scouts are out and about...Right?

If so, how about 'hideunit' on the regimental toolbar, with Ashowunit on the brigade toolbar. I just tested it out, work's fine.

Edit: To prevent gamey 'Stealth Moves', the regimental command will require 2 functions...stop, hideunit.

[SouthernSteel]

So if, say, you have a unit marching on a road and you see a scout coming, you just stop the unit (let's say a brigade) and click "hide"? Then the unit(s) and the officer disappear from sight? Does this also work for batteries?

The only issue I see here is that if a unit can only be hidden while still, people can still leave their scouts out and just wait for the person to move again. (not meaning to disparage, I think this is a fantastic idea, plus the fact you've already tested it, just curious about the parameters of it).

[RebBugler]

These commands work across the board, all units, all officers, depending on how you set up your toolbar.

Ramifications? A big Yes Indeed, so, all MP players would have to abide by Stealth limitations. Not difficult to police, as most infractions would be grossly obvious.

With the proper structure and everyone using the same Stealth limitations, I feel this would be an alternative for concealment that would help address the LOS issues and preferences, as the game LOS AI unfortunately does not provide true concealment, even in the deepest woods.

Hope I didn't open a Pandora's Box here, but if not me, someone would have discovered it eventually. And, never fear, for Norb will seal it tight, if it starts releasing goblins.

[SouthernSteel]

So it would reveal a unit and its commander if they began to move?

The issue is not so much that infractions can/cannot be spotted but that the actual policing (ie the solution bit) is almost impossible to implement. There has not yet been a satisfactory solution proposed to discipline those who use/abuse gamey tactics. The only "fix" we have foundis to modify the game mechanics such that they heavily discourage such abuses, and those aren't foolproof. Gentlemen's agreements are but a farce as we have discovered MP is not inhabited entirely by gentlemen.


And if you're policing for goblins, I fear you're too late: XNS escaped some time back, although no one would likely opposed his re-capture.

[Garnier]

When a rule cannot be clearly defined, even gentlemen won't always read the same meaning into it.

If there were complaints about someone abusing specific commands like this, we could certainly make a rule that the command can't be used at all. That rule can be clearly defined.

[SouthernSteel]

I'd still have to see it in use to be able to tell exactly how it works and might otherwise be used/abused. Perhaps X would be better suited to figure that out though, seems to be his thing.

If it works while moving, that would seem to be the most obvious abuse (not turning it off). But if you catch someone doing it in game, what do you do then? You can't kick or ban the person.

We might as well make a rule that a commander cannot move more than 250 yards (random number) from his own troops. Still, there again, we are stuck trying to prove abuses and lack a disciplinary system to enforce it.

[Garnier]

OK then to clarify, the rule has to be both clearly defined, and clearly obvious to each player whether he is following it or not.

This is what Seal should be explaining to us, going into law and all, but eh.

If it's obvious to me whether I'm breaking the rule, then if I'm caught it's certainly my fault. And someone using a certain command could be caught through the log file if it mattered.

[SouthernSteel]

No, I don't think we need to refer to Seal as to clarity of rules, I meant that he's one of the pioneers for seeking out loopholes in the gameplay. I'm sure he'd be proud to have numerous rules named after him.

This is the issue: "but eh" (I know that's not what you were referring to, but it fits my point well enough). If that typifies everyone's approach to putting rules in place, there is no reason to do it. It would be difficult enough to create a system for crime and punishment, but if no one even cares enough to enforce it, why bother?

We can't reach through the internet and smack someone upside the head, so what can be done here?

[30th PVI]

I think the only other option would be to make it unable to talk on teamspeak during the battle and rely strictly on the courier system (realistic??). So even if someone runs their leader up to scout the enemy, it would require a courier to deliver the message. This would take time and potentially cause the courier to be killed (leading to the enemy knowing he was spotted).

Just a thought....

Matt

[RebBugler]

Agreements of warfare practices are practically useless, and unfun. You fix gamey stuff within the game mechanics...the toolbar being crucial. Like Garnier said, if someone uses a different toolbar for gamey purposes, it registers in the log...this is how to police gamey practices, and blackball repeat offenders.

Ideally here, I think a new command is in order...concealunit, Aconcealunit. It would only be available when the terrain is appropriate, woods, walls, ditches, etc. Units would automatically become unconcealed when the enemy (unit, not officer) comes within a certain radius, say 25 yards. This would/could setup ambushes, volley fire, etc. Players could conceal and unconceal at will, whereas 'showunit' must be given by the next level up, because the player has no control of hidden units.