Fire damage to bases.....

[HansBolter]

About a week ago in game time I sent in a surface combat TF to bombard Moulmien.

The damage to the base included 16 Fire Damage. It was the first time I have ever seen fire damage done to anything but a ship.

I perused the manual this morning and found nothing in the Bases section describing fire damage ( I could have missed it).

Moulmien still has 2 Fire damage a week later.

Can anyone tell me, or point me toward the answer, as to what impact this has in game terms. What does fire damage do to a base?

[ckammp]

Fire damage is mentioned on page 152 of the manual.
 
Fires are usually caused by air units as a result of city attack missions; the fires will usually cause damage to manpower and other industry in the base.

[morganbj]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

What does fire damage do to a base?

It burns stuff.





Seriously though, I never have seen it either that I can recall, so I don't know.

[michaelm75au]

There is a possibility when bombarding bases that shots may miss the target and hit the City portion of the base. This was done to offset the tendency for base bombardments (where LCUs were not targeted) to hit the Port (and the ships therein) esp where there were a number of them.

When the City is targeted, there could be some damage done to a random slot (industry) at the base. The more devices in the base itself, the higher the chance of something being hit.

If you were seeing FIRES, then this most likely meant that Manpower device at the base was hit - IIRC this is where FIRES damage comes from.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

Fire damage is mentioned on page 152 of the manual.

Go figure, it's under Air Units and NOT Bases..........why would anyone go looking for a description of fire damage done to a base by a surface combat task force under Air Units?

[michaelm75au]

Damage by a device is handled through one massive function.
How said device is delivered is less important unless that delivery mechanism acts a force multiplier or divisor of some sort.

[topeverest]

Has to be a pretty successful and generally speaking large attack to cause fires.

[Mistmatz]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: ckammp

Fire damage is mentioned on page 152 of the manual.

Go figure, it's under Air Units and NOT Bases..........why would anyone go looking for a description of fire damage done to a base by a surface combat task force under Air Units?

That's why I like to have a manual in searchable PDF format. [;)]

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Damage by a device is handled through one massive function.
How said device is delivered is less important unless that delivery mechanism acts a force multiplier or divisor of some sort.

I'm not really sure what is meant by this, but what is important to a person who isn't intimate with the code is where answers can be found.

Since fire damage can be dealt to a base by either air bombardment OR ship bombardment, the correct place to define it in the manual would have been to include it in a comprehensive list of damage types under the description of BASES with references to the sections describing the capabilities of Naval and Air units.

That fire damage was soley described in the Air Units section completely overlooked the fact that it can also be dealt by ship bombardment. The descriptions of damage types a base can sustain in the Bases section fails to mention fire damage.

This is an example of the exasperation I often experience when looking for answers in the manual. I hope this helps you to understand why I am critical of the manual's shortcomings.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Damage by a device is handled through one massive function.
How said device is delivered is less important unless that delivery mechanism acts a force multiplier or divisor of some sort.

I'm not really sure what is meant by this, but what is important to a person who isn't intimate with the code is where answers can be found.

Since fire damage can be dealt to a base by either air bombardment OR ship bombardment, the correct place to define it in the manual would have been to include it in a comprehensive list of damage types under the description of BASES with references to the sections describing the capabilities of Naval and Air units.

That fire damage was soley described in the Air Units section completely overlooked the fact that it can also be dealt by ship bombardment. The descriptions of damage types a base can sustain in the Bases section fails to mention fire damage.

This is an example of the exasperation I often experience when looking for answers in the manual. I hope this helps you to understand why I am critical of the manual's shortcomings.

I think your "exasperation" with the manual, which isn't seemingly shared by others who use the PDF or Index, is clear. It's in every one of your posts.

But, if you want to be assured of a lack of exasperation to the Nth degree, shouldn't all DEVICES that can CAUSE Fire damage be detailed seperately in the manual? You know, ships and planes (and flamethrowers for all I know.) And then every type of air or naval or land UNIT (model, mark number, upgraded ship, etc.)? And then every year/era in which this can take place? And every nation which possesses those UNITS? And every environmental factor (weather, moonlight, DL, etc)? Ad infinitum, ad nauseum?

The manual is fine. The reason Fire is in the Air section is that 99.76345% of the time Fire damage comes from strategic bombing attacks, usually against Manpower. You can even produce firestorms, although I've never succeeded. The only time you get Fire damage from bombarment is in the highly limited case described to you up-thread. To insert this in a Base section might give the unwary player the impression that Fire is a common result of naval bombardment. And it isn't. (But doing so would produce howls in the forum from fan-boys of each stripe thinking they'd been robbed of their Fires.)

Manual-writing is an art. Trade-offs, not the least of which is cost in labor hours as well as shipping weight and dimensions, must be made.

I'm interested though. If the AE manual is so bad that it causes you pain, can you direct me to one (1) PC game manual for a game close to AE in complexity that fully does the job in your opinion? Just one.

[Rainer]

No need to start a discussion on opinions about the manual, I think.
Hans has expressed his dissatisfaction with the manual in a most civilized way, trying - I believe - to contribute to improvements. Which, I think, is what this forum among other things has been provided for.

PS: Nearly forgot, I do share Hans' reservations about the usefulness of the PDF docs while at the same time being aware of the difficulty of the task to provide an easy acces to all the features of such a huge and complex software.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Rainer

No need to start a discussion on opinions about the manual, I think.

I'm not discussing. I'm making flat statements. I thought that was clear.

Hans has expressed his dissatisfaction with the manual in a most civilized way, trying - I believe - to contribute to improvements. Which, I think, is what this forum among other things has been provided for.

Yes, he does so IN EVERY SINGLE POST.

That said, the manual is not the forum. Ask all you want in the forum. Debate, discuss, complain, whatever. The manual is a done artifact. It sits on my desk beside me. It isn't going to be re-written. Yet his obsession with it borders on OCD.

Besides that, I will, as a sometime author myself and reader of game manuals lo, these many decades, continue to defend whomever wrote and/or edited the AE manual. It is a wonderful adjunct to a wonderful game. New readers of the forum should not be told over and over that it is lacking in major ways. That is simply not true.

[Rainer]

Calm down, please.
No need to get excited. Really.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Rainer

Calm down, please.
No need to get excited. Really.

Deleted.

[Djordje]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Go figure, it's under Air Units and NOT Bases..........why would anyone go looking for a description of fire damage done to a base by a surface combat task force under Air Units?

Those changes to bombardment were made in the latest patch, before them fires could only be started by air bombing.
Manual was up to date when the game was released, but the fact that now it is wrong about lots of things is very positive for me - it means that devs are giving extended support to the game, always changing and improving it.
I hope in year or so manual will be wrong about even more things...

[Rainer]

WITPAE: The single biggest challenge in coming up to speed in this game is finding explanations for the 80% of the game left unexplained by the manual

Hans,
your sigline has potential to scare potential buyers away. You're sure you want that?

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Rainer

WITPAE: The single biggest challenge in coming up to speed in this game is finding explanations for the 80% of the game left unexplained by the manual

Hans,
your sigline has potential to scare potential buyers away. You're sure you want that?

No, my intention was to make a point. The point has been made. It's a great game that I wouln't want to be responsible for scaring any one away from.

I'll move on while hoping that those responsible for the manual can at least be adult enough about it to consider making a better effort next time.

Moose, you started out providing good answers to my questions and then drove off the deep end obsessively defending what you believe in beyond all rational justification for said defense. My post count is 2,298, my criticisms of the manual for THIS game started about a dozen or so posts ago............you might want to guard against the tendency toward exaggeration. p.s. you are free to green button me the way I did Terminus long ago.....it just isn't worth exposing oneself to sources of agitation. I'm sorry that I have turned out to be one for you.

[Sardaukar]

Considering that manual is probably one of the best in computer gaming industry in recent years, I really don't know what they could do better with resources Matrix Games/HFD has... Obviously, in game like this scale, manual would be rather huge if it was ment for more than answering basic questions. It is searchable, which makes it easier to find things, even when not entirely logical.

[morganbj]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Considering that manual is probably one of the best in computer gaming industry in recent years, I really don't know what they could do better with resources Matrix Games/HFD has... Obviously, in game like this scale, manual would be rather huge if it was ment for more than answering basic questions. It is searchable, which makes it easier to find things, even when not entirely logical.

To me, the issue is that posters are frequently told to read the manual, but when they do, things aren't where they seem like they should be. The manual is one of the best I've ever seen, but it is clearly a committee effort that has a few problems here and there. I've written quite a few manuals in my day, though, and would not have wanted to write this one. It's a very complicated game, so I'm not surprised that a few manual issues are found from time to time. Yes, it's searchable, but we're left to the vagaries of Adobe's engine to do that ... and we have to know what the devs chose to call the thing that we're looking for.

That said, this forum is excellent at providing answers and the devs should be commended for responding so well and so quickly. I don't see the reason for anybody to get defensive about the game, or the manual, or anything else when someone says that they think that there's some "flaw." You just have to expect that. I know that we're damn lucky to have the game and the manual, and we're damn lucky that so many gave of their time and effort to provide us all the pleasure we get from this game. And that's a lot of pleasure, I assure you.

Just my two cents.

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


I'll move on while hoping that those responsible for the manual can at least be adult enough about it to consider making a better effort next time.