Textual combat report

[Thrake]

Combat report is an important tool to get feedback on how well combat went as well as which models performed well and which didn't. This suggestion aims to improve it.

Casualties exemple.jpg (731.66 KiB) Viewed 363 times

I have won the battle but will it help me win the war?

Issues:
- The textual combat report is missing part of the information available in graphic mode
- The information is not easily analized

Suggestions:

Casualties suggestion.jpg (201.61 KiB) Viewed 363 times

The textual combat report is missing part of the information available in graphic mode
- Add the amount of hits performed: this is available in the visual report per subunit, a global count would be useful. Surviving is good, but so is hitting. I did not include a kill column as other than models with %kill override as scoring more hits translates linearily to scoring more kills (I made up the numbers as they were missing but the rest are real numbers).

The information is not easily analized
- Add a colour code. For front/dead/retreat/alive I picked colours similar to the visual report when available for conveniency.
For readiness morale etc I picked a colour code to indicate the value fork: 0 to 24, 25 to 49, 50 to 74, 75 to 100.
Combined with bold it allows to focus on the more important data.

- Reorganize data: in the original report I have 3 different ATG models scattered around the report. In the mock up I put them all next to the other for conveniency.

I also put next to the other both armies to quickly compare data like casualties, including when possible for similar model types. It should also allow to see the whole report without having to scroll when it involves many model types.

- Process data: I added one sub total for every model type and one final line counting all the subunits. Here I can see that despite overpowering the enemy I had greater casualties. It is an economic loss and not a battle I should have fought. It doesn't feel like an immediate conclusion looking at the original combat report.

I also added a column to compare changes in readiness etc before and after combat. Although the enemy lost more readiness, it's less than twice what I lost. The enemy also gained more exp than I did. I like to attack again restreating enemy to profit from low readiness but here it will probably be an even worst result than the current battle.

I tried to keep this simple and straight to the point. Admitedly I wouldn't mind to see additionned the cost in resources of the dead subunits.

- Add spacing: This is to make it easier to track what lines correspond to.

To make the comparison possible I counted subunits without taking into account the fact that 1 represents 100 infantries or 10 for guns and armoured units. Without this the subformations total line would be meaningless.

[fibol]

I like the suggestion in general, but I have one criticism: I would stick with the number of dead, rather than go to subformation.
1) Because it makes it feel more immersive I think. 5000 people died vs 5 subformations lost.
2) Recruits lost are a notable resource loss, going to subformations makes it a lot more difficult to reconstruct the accurate count.

[Soar_Slitherine]

2) Recruits lost are a notable resource loss, going to subformations makes it a lot more difficult to reconstruct the accurate count.

How so? Subunits are worth 100 recruits each regardless of whether they're counted in 100's of men or 10's of vehicles/guns, so to get the amount of manpower lost, just add two zeros.

(The exceptions are trucks, APCs and buggies with their manpower refund mechanic, as well as robotic infantry and automated bunkers, but that difference is not accounted for in any way in the current version of the combat report either).

[fibol]

Eh, yes, you are of course correct. I have no idea what my brain did there.