notti75 wrote:ROP had a nice little feature during battle, you get e.g. information what each Corps or divison currently does etc.. Specially as it let you know when other corps marched to the sound of the guns or routed from battle.
seathom wrote:I definitely hope that the battle reports can be more interesting to watch and give the player some more information as to what happened during the battle although I am wary of getting too much information. I am worried that too much information would turn battles into a science rather than an art. If anything, battles are organized confusion and no one really has a God-view of the war, even after the battle. More information is gleened after talking to those who partook in the battle but by then you are in another battle or that information gets a bit changed depending on the superior's intelligence/motivation as it flows up the chain of command. Too much information will entice players to maximize their forces that doesn't really exist in real life - there needs to be some logical mystery/unknown that occurs with every battle, but it would be great if we knew more of what was happening during the battle so we could tweak our forces or tactics.
nijis wrote:This is my biggest complaint with the AGEOD system. You have this beautiful complicated Athena battle resolution system that weights in so many different issues - and the player only gets the slightest hint of what actually happened. Should I have had more artillery? How much did my superior leadership count? Did it matter that I had a cavalry leader?
The icons give very little away - it seems like every cannon benefits from emplacement to have a "devastating" impact on the enemy. The hits and formation damage logs are a little more interesting but it takes some calculating to figure out if a unit is punching above its weight or not, and even then it's rarely clear why.
It's particularly frustrating when you have a lot of specialized scouting troops and leaders with unique skills. Did any of their talents make a difference or would I have been better off with a lump of heavy infantry?
I know from the battle logs that you track everything that happens in a battle. Surely there must be a more dramatic way to collate and present this information? I may have a huge variety of units to build and leaders to employ, but rarely do I have much idea if I should be using one or the other.
Pocus wrote:The battle report is basically the one you got in EAW and there are many informations to check in it. There is now also a simplified report, because most players just want the results. If you want to go further, you can read the battle log which is a text file and there you'll get everything. To transform this text file into a pretty, readable and user friendly battle report would probably have eaten the whole time allowance that I had for WON, I would say, given how complex and intricate all the factors are.
vicberg wrote:Use the battle logs if you want more information, assuming one is generated by this game and I'm guessing it is. There's a lot going on under the hood.
Duke76 wrote:Actually pressing alt-tab and look for and open a text file it's not my idea of "game immersion" if you read with attention this thread you'll see that most of users did not ask for such "dramatic changes" to the game engine or something which would require the whole time allowance that devs had for the game... just a couple of more clear info about the battle... what's the sense of having such a complex (hidden) combat engine or such detailed unit stats if after a battle I can't even know if my artillery performed well or if a certain division routed etc...
PS
Thanks a lot Pocus for the reply although a bit disappointing
Pocus wrote:Very very few people want more than the detailed battle report that includes in WON the extra feature of EAW... You get the impression that a decent number want that, but that's because you are the ones speaking in the forum, the 'vocal minority' but an overwhelming number of players stops at the simplified report or no report at all and just want to know if they won or lost... As I said, you can't tame the battlelogs details with only 20 hours of work. Priorities, sorry. The interface is always crying for more clarity for example.
Duke76 wrote:A "textual" approach for the combat report would be really great and very immersive but I woudn't pretend so much....Personally, I would just like a simple report of the total kills of my infantry, cavalry & artillery. Basically, the same thing we have for the losses just add for the kills...
Pocus wrote:Very very few people want more than the detailed battle report that includes in WON the extra feature of EAW... You get the impression that a decent number want that, but that's because you are the ones speaking in the forum, the 'vocal minority' but an overwhelming number of players stops at the simplified report or no report at all and just want to know if they won or lost... As I said, you can't tame the battlelogs details with only 20 hours of work. Priorities, sorry. The interface is always crying for more clarity for example.
vaalen wrote:Pocus, I am curious on what is the data for your statement that most people just want to know who won, and not look at the results in detail.
I could be wrong, but I had always thought that most people who played Ageod games wanted more immersion and battle details.
Certainly no one would want you to use all your time on this, but more detail would be appreciated, perhaps something that would not take such a heroic effort.
Best,
Vaalen
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests