Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: RWevodau
But I can't interpret what I see as a 17:4 ratio (which doesn't count the AT value) as really only 5:4, even as a qualitative piece of information. That's what I am striving to learn.

I'm not sure how Ralph is calculating that either, unless he's looking at something else entirely, in which event we have a case of apples and oranges. The 17:4 ratio that you see is the ratio of raw AP strengths, unmodified by any possible terrain or deployment bonuses.

I got the two values swapped. The original comment was

Finally, with (17+5) attack versus a presumed defense of 4, the probability of success is only listed as "fair".

I'm not sure how that dialog calculates that result, if he was attacking tanks, the anti-armor value is 5 against a 4 defense might give a fair.

Ralph

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

We really need an 'Idiot's guide' that gives the bare basics of how to play, and encourages people to play for a while before reading the entire manual.

Hi!

I was working on an interactive tutorial scenario for the game.

I use the "news" section to give instructions to the player and then on the turn he goes and does it. Seemed pretty easy to do, but I got sidetracked by a larger scenario I'm working on.

Are you all interested in me finishing the tutorial? Seems someone with more knowledge would probably do it better, but if you want it from an "idiots" point of view, perhaps I'm your man.

[;)]

Ray (alias Lava)

ORIGINAL: General Staff

Off-topic I think there's a point when you realize 'The Force' is with you and you just float away from the Attack Planning Dialogue and can pretty much figure it out by yourself.

As an addendum, I still find the planning screen useful for assigning support, particularly if there's a lot of it split between several attacks. It's also good for seeing every unit you have assigned to an attack all at once.

ORIGINAL: AstroCat

See this is were I feel this game's UI really fails and does a disservice to not only the game but the genre as well. It's a computer not a boardgame! If you are on a hex it should include the terrain info and give you some clear easy to discern information. This game has way too much under the hood "voodoo" and too many pieces of information that do not mean anything that they say.

Well, there's making the game easier to grasp, and then there's taking away from the immersive aspect where you have to be able to understand the "under the hood voodoo". No-one told Rommel what the attack factor of 7. Panzer was. He just did what he thought would work. If all you had to do to win tactically was add units to the attack planning dialogue until the odds changed to "good", the game would be much worse for it.

Why make a game that is not clear?

War's not clear.

Supply is horrible like this. I want to know how much supply I'm getting per turn, this game acts that is for some reason a big secret.

This could be fairly easily improved. Replace the place in the unit report where it says "supplied" with a number showing the level of supply the unit received that turn. Obviously, unsupplied units could still say "unsupplied" just to be clear. This specific information isn't often very useful but it would be reasonable to have it in there.

Reinforcements, who's getting them?

Presumably you mean replacements. This is a bit more complicated as there is a hell of a lot going on in the replacements system.

When will the unit be ready to fight again?

Define ready. This is a classic example of where you have to make up your own mind. A unit in a poor supply state which has taken losses might be ripe to be pulled out of the line to rest. There again, your opponent might be in even worse state- in which case it's damn the red lights- full speed ahead!

Can't it be a good game if it has clear rules?

There are clear rules. Very, very complicated clear rules.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: AstroCat

See this is were I feel this game's UI really fails and does a disservice to not only the game but the genre as well. It's a computer not a boardgame! If you are on a hex it should include the terrain info and give you some clear easy to discern information. This game has way too much under the hood "voodoo" and too many pieces of information that do not mean anything that they say.

Well, there's making the game easier to grasp, and then there's taking away from the immersive aspect where you have to be able to understand the "under the hood voodoo". No-one told Rommel what the attack factor of 7. Panzer was. He just did what he thought would work. If all you had to do to win tactically was add units to the attack planning dialogue until the odds changed to "good", the game would be much worse for it.

I wouldn't mind exposing the effects of weather and terrain, though, if I can figure out a clean way to do it. I think that part is something that could be helped by being made more obvious. I agree that having everything in the calculations on the combat planning dialog is a bad idea.

Can't it be a good game if it has clear rules?

There are clear rules. Very, very complicated clear rules.

I like that one!

ORIGINAL: RWevodau

First of all, my screen shows an "Our Attack" value of (17 + 5), (with both units participating and irrespective of loss tolerance) while the Tutorial Documentation notes show an "Our Attack" value of (13 + 4). Why is there a difference?

Because when I made the screen shot for the tutorial, I used a "limited attack" for the artillery unit, halving its contribution. My mistake. I guess we'll have to fix that eventually.

Perhaps more importantly, I can't figure out how either (17 + 5) or (13 + 4) results from base values of (9 + 3) for the infantry and 7 for the artillery.

9 + 7 + (1 +3)/2 = 18. Since the left side of the equation contains roundiing, it's within reason that the real total would be 17.

ORIGINAL: AstroCat
Supply is horrible like this. I want to know how much supply I'm getting per turn, this game acts that is for some reason a big secret. Reinforcements, who's getting them? When will the unit be ready to fight again? No way, the games not telling! Why? It says how many per turn you are going to get but not who's going get them.

Steve Knowlton's article, which I think is still valid or someone correct me, has an excellent IMO section on supply. Find it here: http://www.wargamer.com/toaw/scenplay/strategy.htm

Reinforcements. There is a reinforcements schedule you can look at to see what you're getting and when and where. Replacements. There's an article on this at http://www.tdg.nu/articles/design%20art ... tution.htm which explains in some mathematical detail exactly how it works. Not for the faint-hearted but written exactly to get to the heart of the 'secret' and as the result of a disastrous game loss.

A lot of information is deliberately not precise, but that's usually how war works, so I think it's the beauty of the system in simulating it. Do you ever know exactly what you're up against down to the last man? And your first casualty is always going to be your plan. Adapt or die.

Hope this helps.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: General Staff

Off-topic I think there's a point when you realize 'The Force' is with you and you just float away from the Attack Planning Dialogue and can pretty much figure it out by yourself.

As an addendum, I still find the planning screen useful for assigning support, particularly if there's a lot of it split between several attacks. It's also good for seeing every unit you have assigned to an attack all at once.

..mmm, especially the air in complex scens, beats zooming around the map trying to find stuff

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: General Staff
Off-topic I think there's a point when you realize 'The Force' is with you and you just float away from the Attack Planning Dialogue and can pretty much figure it out by yourself.

As an addendum, I still find the planning screen useful for assigning support, particularly if there's a lot of it split between several attacks. It's also good for seeing every unit you have assigned to an attack all at once.

Yes, agreed, it does have its uses. Scenario-dependent maybe but I'd take this statement back since I do use it in specific situations and scenarios- some more than others, and can often depend on whether you're offensive or defensive player. And it is helpful in checking who's supposed to be doing what to who and with whose help.