2 aircraft on each art (not always it seems)

[JanSorensen]

Example

Attaker: 3 German Hvy Bombers
Defender: 1 Mil, 1 AA gun and 1 Art (all UK)

AA fire: The AA gun hits one bomber
Air to ground: 1 Bomber targets the Art but the other targets the Mil

What happened to "2 aircraft will target each Art" before targeting anything else?

The only possible explanation I can find is that the shot down bomber did infact target the Art but just didnt get to attack it. That could make sense though its a bit hard to see from the rules.

[Joel Billings]

I would guess that you are right in your explanation. The issue here is that the code does some things in ways that are more complicated than the explanation in the manual. In those few cases, things don't quite work out as the manual says. Unfortunately, changing the code to exactly match the manual is often more trouble than it's worth (and can cause more problems), so we end up living with these exceptions.

[WaterRabbit]

How about having the manual match the code? Whatever happened to that? Especially since the trend has been toward PDF manuals anyway. This allows the manual to be changed along with the program until they both go gold. For a FPS this really isn't a big deal, but for a complex strategy game, all of the information including the complications is a necessity.

[Paul Vebber]

Obviously that is what you try to do, but when you ahve a lot of interactions, putting every potetial permutation and exception in would haave teh rule book reading like tax law...

As a player you generally need to know the prioriteis a process like this uses to assign shots, but as you have no control over it, the myriad exceptions that couldpotenially arise cause one to question te process, but as long as its doing what it is supposed to and is "pre-empted" by gett ing shot, the manual still is telling you the correct rationale for what the game tries to do.

This is not a case of the code changing and the manual not reflecting what the game does, its a mater of the game following a set of rules, but other rules occasionally interferring with it.

[WaterRabbit]

So then you have put the burden on the player to set up experiments to discover when the code might not follow the rules (not that it would be easy to do without an editor)? That the occasional 'gotcha' will jump out and not make any sense because it wasn't documented?

See if you can find a copy of the Kampfgruppe rulebook. It was well detailed, did not read as tax code, and explained all of the details that went into combat resolution. IIRC, the manual was about the same size or smaller.

This is supposed to be a strategic level game so there really can't be that many permutations to combat -- certainly not the level that were in Kampfgruppe which had an advance armor penetration model. This game is much more simplistic than say Advanced Third Reich -- a game by the way in which the player has to determine all of the permutations without the aid of a computer.

This strikes me as a cop out. Either a company is willing to do a professional job or it isn't. Either it is willing to take the time for a good manual or it isn't. It might understand this IF this company was going to take the route of so many others and place the burden onto a 'clue book/strategy guide' (not that I like that either).

One of Grigsby's companion designers at SSI made the comment that with a good computer game design a player should be able to jump into the without reading the manual and be able to play it and have fun. The manual should be for reference and explain the nuance of how the game works. This designer's preference is to give player's a large 'toy box' of options but a player can just reference some tables to understand how they interact.

This is where the tutorial and manual fail. The manual does not explain the nuance in the detail necessary. The tutorials don't really go beyond introducing the various game screens. They don't really offer much about how to play the game. They are in effect a dumbed down version of the manual presented graphically.

[Paul Vebber]

Your opinion, but this case is a perfect example. The game does exactly what the manual says, but if a unit is damaged it creates an exception. Hardly "unprofessional" to not try to list every possible way a rule may trump another rule.

I have a copy of the Kampfgruppe manual in front of me and I think you're memory is fogged a bit by nostalgia. Frr example it goes through a series of "what terrain trumps what terrain" and ends the discussion with "The computer is the final judge in determining LOS." I remember a lot of "oddities" as far as that went...

So its hardly unusual for all the exceptions not to be listed, your example of kampfgruppe being an example.

What you seem to what is a strategy guide to present strategies to you. Advanced Third Reichs manual certainly doesn;t provide that, and neither does the kampfgruppe manual.

There is a whole forum here full of strategy discussion. One can look at is an an "unprofessional cop out to make our customers do the work for us" or you can take advantage of it. Given the discussions in that forum, another 120+page manual wouldn't cover the various sides arguments for why certain srtagegies should be tried, or don't work. and you would be left to figure out which ones your style of play favors. And we would have to ave updated it ast least twice as major shifts in strategy have come into vogue and either been countered, or the game evolved to reward them more appropriately.

Dropping the game on customers and shutting up would be "unprofessional" we have chsen a way to communicate the "nuances of how teh game work" and let customers discuss it and let opinions evolve over time. FOr a game as simple as it is to have strategy as complex and "nuanced" as it does is a credit to the game design and something that would have required probably another year of playtest experimentation to cover as well as the forum did in about 3 months.

You can argue that you don't like the forum format of discussion of "game nuances" and specifically why.

We value the input of customers, but it has to be something other than "this sucks, you guys are unprofessional" to be useful. You've come here with a chip on your shoulder, WR, and not a lot of detail regarding why its there, or what migh fix it.

You appear to have a lot offer. I hope you decide to take teh edge off the attitude, play the game and either speficy what it is that you don;t like about it, besides our "unprofessionalism".

I'll be glad to play a pbem game with you and offer what "nuances" I know (and after 6 mos feel like I've just scratched the surface sometimes).

How many times can you get a personal mentor to run you through a game? [;)]

[ilovestrategy]

One of Grigsby's companion designers at SSI made the comment that with a good computer game design a player should be able to jump into the without reading the manual and be able to play it and have fun. The manual should be for reference and explain the nuance of how the game works. This designer's preference is to give player's a large 'toy box' of options but a player can just reference some tables to understand how they interact.

I played this game without reading the manual. After 2 games I pretty well had it figured out. I've been playing computer wargames for over 10 years now and I have to say I enjoy this one a lot. At least here you have administrators that are involved with the games taking an active part in the forums. For example, they explained their stance on this issue. Sure, WaW has its problems but what game doesn't?