Page 1 of 1
Some observations in 173
Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 5:59 pm
by BigDuke66
So after finishing my first turn in TOAW after a 5 year absence I saw some things that made me scratch my head.
1. "Disaster" message, doesn't it usually appear in the replay for the player that lost the unit while the enemy player mad his turn?
I got it as I(German side) destroyed a Polish unit in my turn, is it intended to be that way?
2. "Engaged" message, don't have a clue what this message means, looked like a Polish unit in reserve tried to move into a hex just cleared by my attack or is it something else?
3. What's up with those enemy air losses? As my turn was done I checked the report multiple times and it showed me different numbers, 3 to be precise as it circled thru 84, 112 & 140.
RE: Some observations in 173
Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 6:57 pm
by Panama
ORIGINAL: BigDuke66
So after finishing my first turn in TOAW after a 5 year absence I saw some things that made me scratch my head.
1. "Disaster" message, doesn't it usually appear in the replay for the player that lost the unit while the enemy player mad his turn?
I got it as I(German side) destroyed a Polish unit in my turn, is it intended to be that way?
2. "Engaged" message, don't have a clue what this message means, looked like a Polish unit in reserve tried to move into a hex just cleared by my attack or is it something else?
3. What's up with those enemy air losses? As my turn was done I checked the report multiple times and it showed me different numbers, 3 to be precise as it circled thru 84, 112 & 140.
1. Not sure
2. Unit has become engaged in combat an unable to move any further.
3. You never know for sure how many enemy air units are lost. I always assume half what it says. So the game gives you conflicting numbers cuz your pilots are liars and everyone is an ace. [:D]
RE: Some observations in 173
Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:20 pm
by ralphtricky
The only 'Disaster' boxes I see are when you are moving and one of your units gets destroyed and detailed combat reports are on.
I could be wrong, but...
RE: Some observations in 173
Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:46 pm
by Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: BigDuke66
So after finishing my first turn in TOAW after a 5 year absence I saw some things that made me scratch my head.
1. "Disaster" message, doesn't it usually appear in the replay for the player that lost the unit while the enemy player mad his turn?
I got it as I(German side) destroyed a Polish unit in my turn, is it intended to be that way?
2. "Engaged" message, don't have a clue what this message means, looked like a Polish unit in reserve tried to move into a hex just cleared by my attack or is it something else?
3. What's up with those enemy air losses? As my turn was done I checked the report multiple times and it showed me different numbers, 3 to be precise as it circled thru 84, 112 & 140.
All just as it has done since TOAW I.
The three air loss numbers are for fog-of-war. Not that they should fool anyone by now. The random possibilities are: x1.5, x2, and x2.5. So, from those numbers, you know that 56 enemy planes were destroyed.
RE: Some observations in 173
Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:15 pm
by Panama
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
ORIGINAL: BigDuke66
So after finishing my first turn in TOAW after a 5 year absence I saw some things that made me scratch my head.
1. "Disaster" message, doesn't it usually appear in the replay for the player that lost the unit while the enemy player mad his turn?
I got it as I(German side) destroyed a Polish unit in my turn, is it intended to be that way?
2. "Engaged" message, don't have a clue what this message means, looked like a Polish unit in reserve tried to move into a hex just cleared by my attack or is it something else?
3. What's up with those enemy air losses? As my turn was done I checked the report multiple times and it showed me different numbers, 3 to be precise as it circled thru 84, 112 & 140.
All just as it has done since TOAW I.
The three air loss numbers are for fog-of-war. Not that they should fool anyone by now. The random possibilities are: x1.5, x2, and x2.5. So, from those numbers, you know that 56 enemy planes were destroyed.
Ralph, you need to randomize this. Not right that someone can get the correct number.
RE: Some observations in 173
Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 5:41 pm
by BigDuke66
Indeed 3 different numbers that always switch & can be calculated is a bit silly, a percentage range would be good lets say +/-20% and it should stay for that turn.
Or should it change every time a new air loss is added? I don't think so.
RE: Some observations in 173
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:04 am
by pionier
Where is the problem, it wasn't that hard. But I didn't think about the other two numbers. I just knew that (1+3)/2 = 2 was and that 2 divided by 2 the correct loss is. Wasn't that hart to find out... So you just take number (1 low, 2 middel, 3 high).
RE: Some observations in 173
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:15 pm
by Sker
A solution would be a single number wich can vary randomly from 1.5x to 2.5x the real losses. So we mantain the overconfidence of the pilots in consider enemy aircraft destroyed but no one can easily figure out the exact number.
Or if it's an easier solution you can apply the random choice to all the three numbers (es 1st 1.9x; 2nd 2.2x; 3rd 1.6x).
Think about it for 3.5 Ralph[:)]
RE: Some observations in 173
Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 12:03 am
by ralphtricky
ORIGINAL: Sker
A solution would be a single number wich can vary randomly from 1.5x to 2.5x the real losses. So we mantain the overconfidence of the pilots in consider enemy aircraft destroyed but no one can easily figure out the exact number.
Or if it's an easier solution you can apply the random choice to all the three numbers (es 1st 1.9x; 2nd 2.2x; 3rd 1.6x).
Think about it for 3.5 Ralph[:)]
Or make it random but based on the proficiency of the pilots.
Something like Losses + Losses - Proficiency/100 * Losses + random(1,2*Proficiency/100 * Losses)
That's not right, but that's the idea. If the pilots are 100 proficiency then you get answers that are exactly 200% of actual losses (who am I to argue with that sterotype?) and pilots with 20% proficiency will be between 120% and 280% of actual. If I base the random number on the overall proficiency of the air units, then it is a repeatable number.
RE: Some observations in 173
Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 7:09 pm
by Sker
ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
Or make it random but based on the proficiency of the pilots.
Something like Losses + Losses - Proficiency/100 * Losses + random(1,2*Proficiency/100 * Losses)
That's not right, but that's the idea. If the pilots are 100 proficiency then you get answers that are exactly 200% of actual losses (who am I to argue with that sterotype?) and pilots with 20% proficiency will be between 120% and 280% of actual. If I base the random number on the overall proficiency of the air units, then it is a repeatable number.
That seems fine to me.
I only point out that this way unexperieced pilots can make a better report of enemy losses than experienced one.
But since we assume to have enemy air losses doubled, the player have no way to know about it and the 120% result will make him underestimate the real losses