harkins2011

I just suggested the mode so I can be a lazy bastard when testing my maps to make sure the AI has enough build space and won't freeze, and the suggestion overall isn't a competitive matter but rather it's for fun and giggles.

 

scouting should always be a part of the game, albeit this game having no fog of war (and possibly never will with this engine) kind of makes it useless after the first 3 minutes of the start of the match.

(unless you happen to be a good player and stop your enemy from scouting, that's an essential part if you're not just planning to sit in your base till T3)

When I made mention of you in my first post, I meant to convey an analogous instance clad in memorial praise; but if I happen to impute you into my logic, it is was an accident clothed in classic error.

The same may be said of the options 'Superweapons', 'No Naval Combat', etc. (and many other instances parallel). Some should exist in every match, but here we are, with options to disable them. If 'scouting should always be a part of the game', then disable this option prior to starting a match. Every opposition hitherto offered can be resolved with a single click—the question is whether or not this option is worthy amongst the ranks of the other skirmish options. To this I have offered the aforementioned musings. DTA and TI have this option, and, forsooth, nobody complained.

 Instead of using tactics, the battle would turn to the "Who can spawn more units/Who's faction units are better stat wise"

 

Think about it.

Example:

you play as Yanks vs Russians

Enemy sends Kirovs, you send Aeroblazes, enemy sends Rhinos, you send Abrams/Guardian GI's to counter them, enemy sends Tesla cruisers, you send Warhawks, he sends tigers, you send bulldogs, he sends more Rhinos, you send guardian GI or Abrams, he sends Volkov with desolators, dogs, flak troopers and conscripts, you send more warhawks, Tanya and Seals, he builds tesla cruisers and tigers, you send stormchilds, bulldogs and abrams, he .....

 

And i could go on and on...

Thankfully, such thing could only happen in PvP since AI cannot counter like that.

 

These are examples of potential but inferior behaviour: who would have supposed a human player able to detect that many? And why, pray, would the player manage with such an ungainly force at once?

'Who can spawn more units' is the fatigue of every match imaginable, and 'who's faction units are better stat wise' is the fate of poor selection upon the eve of battle. Overall, this option is, as you suggest, only a mere catalyst.

I did allude, though now I have the impression it was unnoticed, that this convenient scrutiny forgoes the usual arduous shroud-revealing formalities, with the purpose, it must be understood, to better comprehend the battlefield for all players. The Foehn Rev. have no dogs, is it not fair that they lack early reconnaissance forces? Only the allies have gap generators, is it not fair that others cannot have their own bases hidden? If these happen to be the 'balance' for the irascible Foehn Rev. and the perturbed Allies, then it shall be so; the player is always the one choosing.

well. why we dont say that you are playing like you were in a real war. in real wars (despite its a different time-line or whatever  -_-) you have to cover your base with anything like gap generators to preventing your enemy to know what is happening in your base.

it will be very bad (in pvp) when someone knows what are you doing in your base.
for example you are preparing for attack with 10 tanks and surprise something (demo truck or any anti-unit) attacking your tanks i think  it will be very very annoying. 

 

That is quite correct; but hitherto, this is, singularly, an option, optional for pursuers of different military stratagems and schemes, and optional for players of different tastes. 

It is akin to the disabling of "Superweapons": the players would evidently behave differently in both psychological and physical mouse-clicking, which inevitably manifests in their style of playing.

With this proposed option advanced, it will do away with 'preparing for attack with 10 tanks and surprise something attacking your tanks', the revealed shroud being an encourager les autres not to follow this ill-fated strategy. Disperse these tanks to follow alternative paths, since it is revealed, would be of no consequence to the commander if venturing to the unknown with strike forces was always an eccentric outrage. Sending spies would be a riskier manoeuvre: the revealed paths warrant greater attention to the topography and displacement of dogs. The sending flights of Kirov airships will too be dispirited, thus the player must oblige to have recourse to other tactics. The playing styles and mood affected by this change are legion.

Players are wont, therefore, to 'change their minds', and it is variety which springs from conditions, and these conditions multiply from a manifold of options.

Will a 'Reveal Map' skirmish option, as suggested by StolenTech around September, likely to be realised? The shroud-revealing support powers (including gap generators) and shroud-affecting features (sabotaging radar centres) must, of course, be removed with this option.

I ask this humbly, for the option, in my experience with other CnC mods, provided another strategic perspective in combat. Being able to see the organisation of military and base of the enemy would invariably warrant a different approach in battle, such as discouraging the construction of shroud-blanketed artilleries. Furthermore, this option would provide—for some players—a more authentic battle sensation as most real-life battlefields do not have this offending opaque shrouds.