Matrix Games Forums

The attached image is the screen players use to issue orders to attack a hex.

I encourage you to watch this video from the timestamp.

https://youtu.be/Yarym5qkZRg?t=3270

The player's tactical situation notwithstanding, the UI and selecting attacking units from the "eligible units" box is causing them confusion.

I recommend a modification to this window that helps players learn from their unit selections in a more apparent way.

The information is there, but I've seen this happen with other more wargame-focused marketing influencers as well. It isn't just this player's knowledge and attention. The shifting odds become a source of frustration for this player and others.

I'm not sure some players realize that units can be selected from the center hexagonal strip-map. I've never touched the UI, but I have played other wargames that use almost identical layouts. Stacking, combat width, force ratios all matter here. Icons with numbers are provided in the two “mods” areas. Maybe change that text to read "... Odds Modifications" instead of just "... mods".

Perhaps making those mod numbers 'pop' in a way that shows the player how the estimate is changing them as selections are made.

As far as I can tell, some of those small icons and numbers in the mod sections are exclusive to this attack window. Players may not actually be familiar with their meaning. Some are very close to other icons used elsewhere with the sigma (i.e. sum) symbol. I know what that means, but in the heat of the moment, players may miss the visual cues as they are now.

The color used for malus numbers in the mods sections is also muted against the background color.

Maybe players should not select units from the “eligible units” box. It might force them to consider the geographic circumstances and other factors.

As I recommended elsewhere, instead of simply providing average values, it would be better to give the player a confidence interval based on your recon rules.

Finally, you will notice in the video that the UI begins to fail given the space and number of counters involved. You may want to provide some fallback for "many" more unit counters.

There are many different ways this could be improved, however, I do believe the current UI isn’t working as well as it could for players.

Would a button titled "best odds" or "recommended attack" be sort of what you are driving at?

I think he's more getting at (at least with the uncertainty/odds element) the fact that the UI presents these as absolutes rather than as best estimates. Experienced players will know that these are just estimates, and over time will learn to what extent they can trust these estimates, but the UI makes the learning curve harder rather than easier.

It's not only an issue for experienced players knowing they are estimates.

Adding or removing specific unit counters to the attack doesn't effectively teach the player the "why" regarding value changes. The game isn't building an intuition about its combat model as well as it might otherwise.

All players, experienced players, not just the example player, appear to be making guesses.

Another prominent player, in another video, was losing the initiative because they were not accurately assesses the situation. They were waiting to win engagements. When they did finally attack, the information on the this window was unconvincing, but the engagement was wholly decisive in the player's favor. The "Why" was missing.

A good wargame should teach its players that competent commanders don't gamble. They assess and mitigate risks. Without getting into another TLDR, it requires the ability to make good assessments about the tactical situation, array of forces, etc.

I suspect the why will be much clearer when we can all RTFM [:D]

The mechanic is essentially the same as DC:B, and that game's manual explains it very well.

ORIGINAL: willgamer
I suspect the why will be much clearer when we can all RTFM [:D]

Apparently not, otherwise the folks making videos would be demonstrating something else. They have access to the manual. [:D]

From what I've seen, the manual is text only and does not have illustrations yet.

It's presently nothing like the published DC:B manual.

Hopefully the finished manual will be equally informative as DC:B's.

The press release manual I've had is very spartan in it's description of the combat resolution stage. I think the criticism above is fair and it's one that I echo.

At the same time, I've found that the odds just aren't a problem once you've gotten used to them. Once you know the game a bit, you can read them just fine, but it's definitely not intuitive and beginners might be frustrated when they keep losing battles at 10:1 and can't understand why.

Notice this recent example at the timestamp... a different player and more attentive and experienced.

https://youtu.be/Oo04sW4bCMw?t=2144

Keep in mind, the final odds reportedly include offensive and defensive modifiers. This is, I believe, the same way you would use a CRT and then resolve the battle.

Elite sub-elements, like political trucks, being evaluated? I assume so.

I'd also offer a wild ass guess, if the AI is using the same odds as an evaluation criteria, it may not be making informed decisions either.