Re: Vehicle facing
 

Sounds good to me.

Re: Vehicle facing
 

OK - Now have this incorporated into both games for testing. seems to be working fine.

One thing - there were two right click events to handle, one on the map with no detected enemy there (turns turret if it has one), and one onto an enemy unit (the latter shows the enemy info, and also aligns the hull). Now, the latter has an option to SHIFT+RIGHT_CLICK if all you want is target info, unit does not turn to face the enemy then, possibly drawing fire.

I have also limited it to a maximum range of a kilometre or so, half that if it's an infantry unit, as only close-by enemy may notice. Chance of popping off an opfire shot is also higher closer than far away.

Re: Vehicle facing
 

OK, I agree with having the turn to face trigger op fire, but is there now a way to see what a unit's field of view is without using up movement points? As I understand this change, any right click could use up a movement point unless it doesn't cause a change in facing.

Unless it's a shift right click on an enemy unit.

So what happens if you shift right click on a blank square?

Re: Vehicle facing
 

Click the "Unit View" button...
(between preferences and rally hex at the bottom of the icons)

Re: Vehicle facing
 

None of this uses movement points, as we decided to go for KISS, option A.1 only - see the thread above.

Voluntarily changing face may now trigger an opportunity fire or even several. It does not cost move points. And as stated, there is already the Unit View button, which shows all hexes a unit can see but without moving it.

Been testing this in an ongoing WW2 LC, and it really doesn't cause massive bursts of fire, even when I forget and swivel a unit just to see if it can see something. A habit I'll simply have to grow out of:)!

Re: Vehicle facing
 

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I read A.1 as a subset of A, ie costing MPs.

I have to admit, I thought that turning to face already triggered opfire, but I must not have been paying attention to what was going on.:doh: I've since tried that out in the tutorial, and found I was wrong.

What a great game. What is it, 20 years old now? And still going strong. I started with SP2, which had been out a year when I got a computer fast enough to play it.

Re: Vehicle facing
 

Not only is a great game and 20 years old (and still improving), it is just simply the BEST, top notch, these combat simulations (WINSPWW2 & WINSPMBT) remain unmatched in the Tactical subgenre of wargames from Brigade to single man size turn based.

You don't need fancy graphics and eye candy to have a good combat simulation do you? :fire::fire::fire:

Re: Vehicle facing
 

Just throwing an idea out there... Couldn't this be used as a tactic to soak up all op-fire from a group of enemy unit? (For example, I can use a tank to soak up all op-fire from a group of infantry unit, after which I can advance my own infantry without risks.)

I liked to idea of expending movement points to change facing of a vehicle, on the other hand.

Infantry should not expend movement points to change facing, because at this scale an infantry unit shouldn't have a facing. Different guys in a unit of 8, 9 or 10 soldiers could be covering different arcs, etc.

Anyway, congratulations on an amazing game and thanks for the continued support!

Re: Vehicle facing
 

This would make perfect sense with a squad of 8 or so, but what about a 2-man scout team? Tho one could argue in the course of a turn that could look around easily enough.
And how about ambush type situations?
Infantry having 360 vision/facing is sort of a six-a-one half-dozen-of-the-other situation.

Re: Vehicle facing
 

You make a very good point, and I see how maybe having an explicit facing would make sense for emplaced infantry (like an MMG for example); but I still believe that mobile infantry should have 360 vision. The way I see it, the ambush situation you mention would make sense only if it happened within the same hex, with a squad being jumped pretty much on their backs by the enemy. If the enemy is one hex away, though, we are already talking 50 meters away. I think in this case an inf unit or a scout unit (which by definition should have good vision and mobility, even though they have lower numbers) should have 360 vision.

I can see how a case can be made for giving all inf units explicit facing, but wouldn't we be getting to almost uncomfortable levels of granularity at that point?