Why dosnt the game have cut scenes and propaganda movies to add content or flavor?

[Seytan]

Title says it all.

[Yaab]

As for the lack of the newsreels, well, I cannot read the developers' minds, but you do get some propaganda announcements by the Tokyo Rose when you capture important bases.

[wdolson]

Most newsreel footage is still copyrighted material and it would have cost money to secure the rights. I thought having period radio news casts would have been cool, but again, almost everything is copyrighted.

[Alpha77]

Would be disabled anyway....this is strategy.

[Lokasenna]

Yeah, I'd disable it after a few runs through.

Also, the game isn't exactly high on graphics.

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Yeah, I'd disable it after a few runs through.

Also, the game isn't exactly high on graphics.

For a wargame the graphics are good. The map looks fine, better than most others imo.

[LeeChard]

I tried a map art mod but went back to the original. I like it better.
What I would like is zoom in/out but as I understand it that is a major mod,maybe not
even possible with the engine

[mind_messing]

If they were to add anything to the game at this stage, it should be more detailed post combat reports.

I want to know how many shots any given ship fired, what it fired at, how the ship and task force commanders affected performance.

I want to know how many losses a division took in the bombardment phase, how many losses it took in the assault phase from each enemy unit and how many losses it dealt to each enemy unit.

I want to know etc etc.

I'd take that over more fluff any day.

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

If they were to add anything to the game at this stage, it should be more detailed post combat reports.

I want to know how many shots any given ship fired, what it fired at, how the ship and task force commanders affected performance.

I want to know how many losses a division took in the bombardment phase, how many losses it took in the assault phase from each enemy unit and how many losses it dealt to each enemy unit.

I want to know etc etc.

I'd take that over more fluff any day.

A bit overboard, every single ship that was in battle normally writes an AAR which then goes to the higher command. Which would be a fleet commander I guess. That the highest command (which is you) would have any time to read such reports is quite impossible Well except you are Hitler, I believe he mangled even in the operations of single battalions when things got desperate...

Also I believe that the reports you want should only be available with FOW OFF. But who plays with OFF anyway....

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

If they were to add anything to the game at this stage, it should be more detailed post combat reports.

I want to know how many shots any given ship fired, what it fired at, how the ship and task force commanders affected performance.

I want to know how many losses a division took in the bombardment phase, how many losses it took in the assault phase from each enemy unit and how many losses it dealt to each enemy unit.

I want to know etc etc.

I'd take that over more fluff any day.

A bit overboard, every single ship that was in battle normally writes an AAR which then goes to the higher command. Which would be a fleet commander I guess. That the highest command (which is you) would have any time to read such reports is quite impossible Well except you are Hitler, I believe he mangled even in the operations of single battalions when things got desperate...

Also I believe that the reports you want should only be available with FOW OFF. But who plays with OFF anyway....

Not really.

If I have a battleship that ends up in a surface engagement, fires off all its ammo and gets no hits, I'd like to know why.

Even little icons saying "This ship failed a crew/leader experience roll and suffered reduced accuracy in this battle" would be nice.

AGEOD does this very, very well. Below is a screenshot from a combat report from a battle.



It pains me not having this level of detail in AE. I want to know what units benefited from better leaders, or suffered from lack of supplies, or were able to defend better because of forts.

[Terminus]

You want more detail. More detail in the most detailed wargame in history. More detail in a game that vomits details all over you every chance it gets.

Okay...[8|]

[oaltinyay]

Because too much grafitti will clog a 'pure wargame' such as this, loading times etc. If you want to add such stuff please go and watch youtube and listen to your collection of Glen Miller Mp3s. I would rather have the develepers invest that amount of time into the game mechanics itself.

ps. funny nick "seytan" ( you should switch to more international version 'shaitan' ) - I am assuming you hail from asia minor.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

You want more detail. More detail in the most detailed wargame in history. More detail in a game that vomits details all over you every chance it gets.

Okay...[8|]

It's all very well simulating individual machine gun sections in combat.

It's kind of ruined when we need to divine what formation got a bonus from a good leader.

It's all very well having individual weapons on ships modeled.

It's kind of ruined when we don't know if a ships bad performance was down to bad rolls or bad leadership.

etc

Oh, and as for "vomiting detail", there's an elegant solution! Have a little button on the regular combat report, call that button "Detailed Combat Report", where it hides all these little nuggets of information until we want to go looking for them.

Then again, that would require actually showing players some of the "under-the-hood" stuff that goes on in game, and we can't have that, can we?

[Terminus]

You DO know I helped make this monstrosity, right? It's already got FAR too much information in it.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

You DO know I helped make this monstrosity, right? It's already got FAR too much information in it.

Yes, and I can understand your defense of the game as a result of your own personal involvement in it.

The issue isn't the quantity of information in the game, it's how it's presented to the player. That is, it isn't, or if it is, it's in a bare-bones manner.

Do you really want to tell me that the AE style combat reports are better than the AGEOD example I posted above?

Sure, my bombardment attack destroyed 12 squads and disabled 8 more. What unit caused the most disablements? Was it my 75mm field guns or my 15cm howitzers? Oh, the howtizer unit failed a land skill check and didn't fire? Better replace the leader. One example. I could find all that out from one game and not from another.

[Bullwinkle58]

I agree with you in general. I know the data is in there boiling around, but if I can't see why certain things happen, or more importantly don't, it's hard to improve my gameplay. Land combat and carrier operations are the two biggest areas where, even after ten years with this engine or its father, I often don't have any idea what's going to happen when I open the replay movie.

If I could only have one wish it would be for a staff Ops officer to give me an estimate of results pre-attack on land. I know there are randoms. But a lot of wargames have something like this. When I get a 1 to 455 odds roll on the CR with a big stack I just want to throw things.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I agree with you in general. I know the data is in there boiling around, but if I can't see why certain things happen, or more importantly don't, it's hard to improve my gameplay. Land combat and carrier operations are the two biggest areas where, even after ten years with this engine or its father, I often don't have any idea what's going to happen when I open the replay movie.

If I could only have one wish it would be for a staff Ops officer to give me an estimate of results pre-attack on land. I know there are randoms. But a lot of wargames have something like this. When I get a 1 to 455 odds roll on the CR with a big stack I just want to throw things.

Exactly. That's my biggest issue as well - you can't learn what went right or what went wrong.

It's the ground combat model that gives my the biggest head-ache. I destroyed 200 squads. Great.

What units did I destroy 200 squads from? I don't want to know what type of squad, I just want to know what unit they were from, and throw a healthy does of FOW in for good measure, but I'd like a rough BDA of losses!

The same goes for when my units are attacked. I really shouldn't be forced to use tracker or pen and paper to find out how many losses/disabelements one of my units suffered.

[Seytan]

I am American actually, and have no desire to switch my nick...I used to visit these forums years
ago under the Sheytan nick but for some reason was never able to recover my account after I
decided to quit visiting for some years as a result of my arguments with Terminus.
Nice to see most of the original actors are still on stage here :}

ORIGINAL: oaltinyay

Because too much grafitti will clog a 'pure wargame' such as this, loading times etc. If you want to add such stuff please go and watch youtube and listen to your collection of Glen Miller Mp3s. I would rather have the develepers invest that amount of time into the game mechanics itself.

ps. funny nick "seytan" ( you should switch to more international version 'shaitan' ) - I am assuming you hail from asia minor.

Exactly. That's my biggest issue as well - you can't learn what went right or what went wrong.

It's the ground combat model that gives my the biggest head-ache. I destroyed 200 squads. Great.

What units did I destroy 200 squads from? I don't want to know what type of squad, I just want to know what unit they were from, and throw a healthy does of FOW in for good measure, but I'd like a rough BDA of losses!

The same goes for when my units are attacked. I really shouldn't be forced to use tracker or pen and paper to find out how many losses/disabelements one of my units suffered.



Agreed.

[wdolson]

The ground combat model gives you something approaching realistic results, but it doesn't get there in a realistic manner. Giving you the more detail on land combat would not give you any useful information and would just lead to complaints about it. More than we already see. Nobody, including the developers are not happy with the current land combat model. We tried to make the end results as accurate as possible without taking the six months to a year it would have taken to rewrite the whole thing.

Bill

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The ground combat model gives you something approaching realistic results, but it doesn't get there in a realistic manner. Giving you the more detail on land combat would not give you any useful information and would just lead to complaints about it. More than we already see. Nobody, including the developers are not happy with the current land combat model. We tried to make the end results as accurate as possible without taking the six months to a year it would have taken to rewrite the whole thing.

Bill

Why would anyone complain at being able to see what modifiers were applied to what units? Or being able to see the breakdown of losses by unit? How is that information not useful?

My issue isn't really with the model - it works. It's how the output of the model is presented. Ok, I lost five thousand men. From what units did those losses come from? Oh, I suffered a penalty due to bad leaders? What units did that penalty apply to, so I can see who needs replacing?