[GO] Moonlight Option

[Teflon Kris]

Moonlight Option

• As well as Sunny and Foggy, have a third, Moonlight option.
  
  In moonlight, players would be able to see 2 regions away, further than in fog of war (those which are adjacent to adjacent regions).

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• This option would be tactically more interesting than sunny, without having some of the drawbacks of foggy (such as no idea about an opponents drop when not going first etc.).
• Also, perhaps this option wouldn't be too technically-difficult to introduce coding-wise?

[chapcrap]

I can a little interest in this. However, I think this would be mostly useful on larger maps. As always, I typically have no problems with adding options!

So, I vote for adding it.

[s3xt0y]

love it

[xenowolff]

That actually sounds pretty snazzy. I can see it having huge effects on larger maps (or really complex ones)

Want!

[pjromano]

One interesting feature you could add to this is only to illuminate 2 territory deep, as suggested, but also to illuminate stockpiles of a given number of troops, say, 50.

Think of it in this kind of way. If you were at war, and you had 1 troop, you're never going to see his little torch in the moonlit night - but if you have 50 troops, each with a torch to light their way, you'd see that light coming.

So, not only would you see 2 territories around you, you'd also see that stockpile on the other side of the map with 51 troops sitting on it.

This might be a good way to discourage stockpiling, and may also add some interesting strategy to spreading out troops to avoid being illuminated...

[iamkoolerthanu]

I think that moonlighting and the torchlighting that you are suggesting are two different suggestions!

[Teflon Kris]

One interesting feature you could add to this is only to illuminate 2 territory deep, as suggested, but also to illuminate stockpiles of a given number of troops, say, 50.

Think of it in this kind of way. If you were at war, and you had 1 troop, you're never going to see his little torch in the moonlit night - but if you have 50 troops, each with a torch to light their way, you'd see that light coming.

So, not only would you see 2 territories around you, you'd also see that stockpile on the other side of the map with 51 troops sitting on it.

This might be a good way to discourage stockpiling, and may also add some interesting strategy to spreading out troops to avoid being illuminated...

Interesting idea, although it could be argues that tens, even hundreds of troops could be well hidden, whilst thousands might be slightly more noticable?

[Teflon Kris]

I think that moonlighting and the torchlighting that you are suggesting are two different suggestions!

Agreed

[GoranZ]

all good about what can be seen but so far what can be attack was the same with what you can see... this might be confusing for some players...

I like the idea about exposing big stacks of units...

[ViperOverLord]

Let me be the second to say: Snazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

[Victor Sullivan]

Love the suggestion, and more importantly, the name of the suggestion.

-Sully

[patrickaa317]

I like the suggestion and I'm definitely not someone who specializes in coding but I foresee some issues with this when it comes to bombardments.

Example on Waterloo map. If you own Clinton 02, you can bombard Reille 06 which in turn is adjacent to Hougomont 01. It seems though it may be difficult to restrict you from seeing Hougomont 01.

That's the only issue I see with it, hopefully I'm wrong on my assumption.

[chapcrap]

I like the suggestion and I'm definitely not someone who specializes in coding but I foresee some issues with this when it comes to bombardments.

Example on Waterloo map. If you own Clinton 02, you can bombard Reille 06 which in turn is adjacent to Hougomont 01. It seems though it may be difficult to restrict you from seeing Hougomont 01.

That's the only issue I see with it, hopefully I'm wrong on my assumption.

Well, Waterloo has issues anyway. It should probably be removed. Does that help?

[patrickaa317]

I like the suggestion and I'm definitely not someone who specializes in coding but I foresee some issues with this when it comes to bombardments.

Example on Waterloo map. If you own Clinton 02, you can bombard Reille 06 which in turn is adjacent to Hougomont 01. It seems though it may be difficult to restrict you from seeing Hougomont 01.

That's the only issue I see with it, hopefully I'm wrong on my assumption.

Well, Waterloo has issues anyway. It should probably be removed. Does that help?

It was used for illustration purposes, apply the same logic to any map with bombardables.

[blakebowling]

I like the suggestion and I'm definitely not someone who specializes in coding but I foresee some issues with this when it comes to bombardments.

Example on Waterloo map. If you own Clinton 02, you can bombard Reille 06 which in turn is adjacent to Hougomont 01. It seems though it may be difficult to restrict you from seeing Hougomont 01.

That's the only issue I see with it, hopefully I'm wrong on my assumption.

Well, Waterloo has issues anyway. It should probably be removed. Does that help?

It was used for illustration purposes, apply the same logic to any map with bombardables.

This could be applied only to territories that can attack each other, as bombards are coded in the XML differently.

[jeraado]

Personally I'd much rather see the stack-size determining visibility. The idea of fog being two terts deep just doesn't seem that different to normal fog. I understand that some maps and in some situations it would add an additional set of options, but when compared to the other option sets on CC (spoils, fog, reinforcements) it isn't anywhere near as much of a difference and therefore to me seems a little frivolous.