Suggestion regarding die rolls etc.

[guke]

IMO the hardest part of learning to play the game is to figure what factors influence
the results of your actions. For example, it would be nice to know how bomber altitude
affects bombing results or why a specific airgroup chose to not fly any sorties last turn.

I find myself constantly browsing the forums to see if anybody has figured out a certain
piece of game mechanics or if I have to find out myself by trial and error.

Why not create a logfile and log all die rolls and factors influencing these in this file?
What I mean is results of moral checks, factors that are calculated into ground combat odds
etc.

I'd be surprised if something like this didn't already exist in the code for debugging purposes
and I am sure it would make understanding the game much easier.

regards,
Gunnar

[Feinder]

While I do think it would be nice to see more information (like what the heck do all those numbers mean that flash on the LCU combat screen?), -more- numbers would potentiall take away some of the "feel" of the game.

It's the same reason that folks produce the Zeros in droves, the numbers are better. Or we calculate the exact amount of guys that can fit on a pair of AKs on Tuesday in the rain.

It's just the anal-retentive trait of (most) wargamers to crunch the numbers whenever they can. If you give the game more numbers (to a point), then you just have a game of numbers. The (somewhat inadequate) attempt at Fog of War tries to blur the numbers, and yet the very first thing we do is check the actual losses report each day.

But there is certainly a part of me that wants to know exactly what's going on, I think the current game does somewhat simulate the delimma facing many of the theater commanders at the time, "How many guys does he really have at Rangoon? Will one division do it? Should I add an Tank Rgt from the reserves? How long should I bombard before hand?..."

More numbers = good.
More number = bad.

Take your pick. Just call me Switzerland.

-F-

[dtravel]

Much of the player's lack of information is deliberate design. I agree that much of it is exceedingly annoying but it isn't likely to change. Another large chunk of the lack of info is the very poorly written manual. (Yes, some of you out there disagree with me on this and think I have unrealistic expectations. Too bad. [:'(]) But various ... persistant ... people out there (*cough*OCD*cough*) have figured out various parts. If you have a more specific question, Guke, put it up and someone will probably answer it. (Correct answers cost more, of course. [:D])

[Nikademus]

the more numbers you know....the more you can game the system. This has always been the case with wargames.

[Feinder]

^
|

Bingo.

-F-

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

the more numbers you know....the more you can game the system. This has always been the case with wargames.

Ya, anything else obvious you want to state. [;)]

Basically I agree with you, Nikademus. I think the real question becomes how much of the numbers should the player know. Some things the player should know (or at least have access to), such as how much supply is required to feed his units and how much cargo/passenger space does a unit need to be shipped, because the RL commanders had the information and it is critical to the player's decision making. Some the player has to know in order to issue orders to the game because it is a computer game. And some we just want to know because, well, because we're competitive (like why did my 1,000 lb bomb just bounce off the Yamato's deck armor!). [:)]