Battle reports - Please make them more interesting!

[vaalen]

Actually, you do not understand what I am asking. I do not have a series of details I absolutely want to see. I find the new battle report system to be less immersive, in that it feels less immersive than what Ageod has done before, presenting less than what was presented before, as in PON, for example.

I am simply asking Pocus to use his talents to add more information that HE would find more immersive, if he can so without expending to much of his limited time.

I have been similar requests of Pocus and PhilThib in the past, though I doubt they remember it, I was usually quite happy with what they did. These two are the masters of designing these kind of games, in my opinion, and I would not dream of trying to micromanage what they do.

[vicberg]

Let me make a suggestion then.

List in this thread the EXACT things you want to see, including general UI changes. Think it through. Saying "more immersive" is like saying "more green." More Green than what? Lighter? Darker? Who knows? You know what you want, so be specific. Pocus may or may not know what everyone wants, so make it easier for him and see if there's concurrence from others.

Now you've defined a scope of work and Pocus can then determine at a later date if it's doable or not. Then he can figure out how to build it in, if it's doable in a manner that supports those who want the more detail and those who don't.

If in doubt, ask for less rather than more.

[Bismarck1940]

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.

How do you get access to the existing detailed battle log text files??

[vicberg]

Set your battle animation to anything other than masked and it will generate a battle log.

[veji1]

Immersion is a very broad and subjective term. Within this thread, some people obviously want to maximize the game system and for them, that is immersion. Others want a narrative of the battle which is the hardest of all to program for. So what is "more detail" and "immersion" in the battle reports?

I will bet that if asked for specifics of more detail on this thread, there will be 20 different answers. Some people want this. Some people want that.

Your idea of immersion is different than mine which is different than the 5-10 other people who have posted in this thread and this is what is called in IT as a slippery slope. Start trying to program for nebulous requests and quickly snowballs into a complete and utter mess.

In my opinion, if you want to see odds, percent chances, rolls, damage, that's not immersive at all to me. It's making it into a game and showing the game mechanics, which, again, are already in the battle logs. So my idea of immersion is very different than yours and everyone else.

If I were you, I'd get specific on what you want and then watch 20 other opinions pop up. And then if I were Pocus, I'd politely not do anything.

Agreed, Immersive is a very subjective word.

I perfectly understand why Ageod would chose to have a "simplified" battle report available. It actually looks very much like the old Europa Universalis from Paradox (which like many is how I discovered PhilThib's work...). It's simple and to the point. Sure it's dry, but for many it does the trick.

My beef is mainly with the old battle report which will remain available : it had eventually become very detailed but also quite confusing in the end. You see your units, their hits given and taken, cohesion losses, some modifiers "this unit's deadly arty fire, etc..." "This unit had bad luck..." "This unit's leader this or that...". All great in a sense but very fragmented and not giving you any "vue d'ensemble" of the battle.

Ideally what I would want from a text battle report would be in order :
- An intro stating the computer perception of the result "Great victory sir !" "inconclusive skirmish sir" "vanguard accrochage sir" "fierce battle sir", etc.
- Who engaged who (we attacked, were attacked) and where.
- The main troops (ie stacks) involved, loosely mentioning MTSG (as I did in my previou example), and an estimate of the number of ennemies (ball park).
- The result (which may be misinformed btw) ie, After a "short / long / 4 hours long /etc battle" "we are the victors, the ennemy retreated" or "the ennemy was routed" or "following orders we decided to disengage"
- the aftermath " we are being pursued" or "our cavalry pursuite yielded many prisonners"
- The losses : "at the cost of more than x men lost, we inflicted heavy casualties in the range of x to the ennemy".
- The main troops info : " the 2nd Corps of the Grande Armée bore the brunt of the battle and has suffered heavy casualties " or " unfortunately the 3rd division of 2nd Corps of the Grande Armée was destroyed in battle" or " sadly general x of 3rd division of ... was killed"
- A closing sentence like "following this /great victory/skirmish /etc (reference to the opening sentence), we await your orders"

The player could then click on an icon to get the old fashioned battle report or the lesse detailed new one.

Of course I perfectly understand this isn't a priority, but to me this is what a nice battle report would look like.

[Duke76]

Asking for a more exaustive and clear battle report it's not just about "game immersion" but it's about strategy! I read some very , very strange comparisons to Europa Universalis or other Paradox games... C'on gentlemen, those games have a very limited and simplistic warfare conception, (EU is a great game concerning diplomacy and economy managment) but Ageod games are focus on the operational and military aspect, you spend a lot of time creating your army, considering tons of stats and when you finally get the battle you cannot really undestand if your choices really made the day...

[veji1]

Asking for a more exaustive and clear battle report it's not just about "game immersion" but it's about strategy! I read some very , very strange comparisons to Europa Universalis or other Paradox games... C'on gentlemen, those games have a very limited and simplistic warfare conception, (EU is a great game concerning diplomacy and economy managment) but Ageod games are focus on the operational and military aspect, you spend a lot of time creating your army, considering tons of stats and when you finally get the battle you cannot really undestand if your choices really made the day...

Again the old battle report (similar to CW2, etc) is available so you get as much info as you had before... I don't think more or better info in terms of data would be better. After all during the Napoleonic wars, Nappy didn't have super precise data explaining why the thin red line model was hurting the french mixed order so much so that he could adapt and emulate the way the british fought... Sometimes being omniscient isn't the best thing in a game. I for once have always thought we had to much info on how strong ennemy stacks were, their force composition, etc... You should know that there is a 20 to 30 000 men force about there which seems to be such army or corps, not necessarely know it is a 1347 AV stack...

[vicberg]

Asking for a more exaustive and clear battle report it's not just about "game immersion" but it's about strategy! I read some very , very strange comparisons to Europa Universalis or other Paradox games... C'on gentlemen, those games have a very limited and simplistic warfare conception, (EU is a great game concerning diplomacy and economy managment) but Ageod games are focus on the operational and military aspect, you spend a lot of time creating your army, considering tons of stats and when you finally get the battle you cannot really undestand if your choices really made the day...

Ahhh, get 30 people in a conference room and start asking them specifics about what they want in the software and look how things start changing. It's not about game immersion? it's about maximizing the game engine so you can improve your strategy, which is already in battle logs. So if I have to prioritize my work and the users can't get everything they want, Duke76, your requests are the first to be struck from my list because the information you want is already provided in the battle logs and you wouldn't have convinced me that additional functionality is needed.

Veji1 did a good start on being specific. He wants a narrative. If I were the designer, I'd followup with a number of questions.
1) What is a skirmish? One round? Less than 1k of casualties on both sides? Both?
2) What is a fierce battle? More than 50% casualties on both sides?
3) Define your criteria for the other "battle types"
3) Criteria for who bore the brunt? The unit that took the most hits?

Much of the other information you wanted is actually kicked out as messages in the message area. Just not included as part of the battle.

[Duke76]

1) The battle log "out of the game" is something I really don't want to consider for obvious reasons.
2) Actually it's not you the guy I want to "convince" of my point of view.
3) I've already written my personal suggestions for the battle report, you don't like them? ok np, just different visions , you really don't have to say after every post what is good for you or not, this is a thread about suggestions and gameplay request which are not thought to spoil you personal game experience, just possible "additions"... then relax

[vicberg]

Software Development 101

Rule #1) User #29 (out of 30) isn't not going to get what he/she wants unless it's absolutely clear that Users 1-30 are in some type of agreement
Rule #2) See Rule #1
Rule #3) There are defects (software is supposed to X,Y and Z and is doing A, B and C instead) and there are enhancements (it's doing X, Y and Z and I want it to do A, B and C). Defects are fixed without question and once identified.
Rule #4) For any enhancement, there has to be a measurable improvement to the software. In business, it means improving upon the business process to save money. In game world, the game is easier to understand, to use and to play without sacrificing core components of the game and alienating part of the market base.
Rule #5) The enhancement needs to be clearly identified in terms of requirements and scope of work.
Rule #6) We do not talk about fight club

Keep this in mind. If you really really want a change, you'll have to do the above.

[vicberg]

1)2) Actually it's not you the guy I want to "convince" of my point of view.

The person you want to "convince" has already said to use the battle logs earlier in this thread. See my prior post if you want a change. Time is money and their focus will be on measurable improvements.

[ANTONYO]

One of the main criticisms that are made to the engine AGEOD is that the results of some battles are not understood.

No information about which stacks have started the battle and which are added and withdrawing that battle. Adding that information, the results of the battles would be better understood.

No need to add tons of data to the battle report, only important. What stacks begin the battle and that stacks are added and withdrawn in each round of battle.

[vaalen]

Maybe the real solution would be to include a tab that takes you directly to the battle log in the babble report. That would surely provide a lot of information, and people who wanted to look at it could look at those parts that interested them. and skip over the rest.

I do not think this would be difficult or time consuming to do.

[vicberg]

An excellent idea and one that I would sign up for. Seems relatively easy to implement.

[veji1]

Ahhh, get 30 people in a conference room and start asking them specifics about what they want in the software and look how things start changing. It's not about game immersion? it's about maximizing the game engine so you can improve your strategy, which is already in battle logs. So if I have to prioritize my work and the users can't get everything they want, Duke76, your requests are the first to be struck from my list because the information you want is already provided in the battle logs and you wouldn't have convinced me that additional functionality is needed.

Veji1 did a good start on being specific. He wants a narrative. If I were the designer, I'd followup with a number of questions.
1) What is a skirmish? One round? Less than 1k of casualties on both sides? Both?
2) What is a fierce battle? More than 50% casualties on both sides?
3) Define your criteria for the other "battle types"
3) Criteria for who bore the brunt? The unit that took the most hits?

Much of the other information you wanted is actually kicked out as messages in the message area. Just not included as part of the battle.

Indeed, the battle report is based on a series of "triggers" that would create the different element of the text :
- when a force on offensive posture meets a force in defensive posture it is said that the offensive engaged the defensive.
- when the battle posture blue or green allowed a side (or both actually) to disengage quickly say in the first round, you call it a skirmish.
- based on who started retreated out of the province, the victor or loser is determined.
- depending on how many elements of a side started routing the text would say that force B was routed by force A
- If in the battle resolution a unit has compiled some particular badges "accurate fire " "excellent leader " etc, you could mention that the "3rd division of the 2nd Corps played a decisive role in ensuring victory", etc.

I am not saying it is easy, it is actually tedious in a sense because you need to organise the integration of the different battle log "bricks" that are relevant in to a textmatrix that allows you to generate the text battle report.

Anyway, I am not hassling the devs about it of course, just saying that for me this is what immersion is. When I remember learning about Austerlitz or Iena or Waterloo as a kid, I remember maps and written text, not tables... What I would like to read is that " the 4th Corps of Grande Armée proved decisive in routing the army of the ennemy and captured many ennemy soldiers"... not just see a table that seems to show that the austro-russians lost so much cohesion they kept taking hits without being able to respond much until they routed... This is the difference between dry and immersive to me.

IF players want to dig deep for the data, let's them play with the battle log, but that's not immersion to me and I think quite a few other players.

Anyway interesting conversation fellows.

[Drake001]

I like the narrative suggestions with a bit as to why an element did well or poorly. Never was a big fan of optimization of strategy through excel...it just feels as if I am trying to "game" the system for a flaw and an edge. I always felt better when I won by strategy rather than knowing a system flaw made horse cavalry more effective, though I think some basic elements need to be available.

[Wild Boar]

The capturing of colours is already in March of the Eagles which ageod developed. Surely they can add that here. Protectin of the colours was a big deal in the napoleonic wars. The only other thing is record the battle with the element as a kind of battle honour. These would make the immersion fantastic.