AACW Advanced Mathematics 101

[Adlertag]

I'm actually quite serious when I say that the fog of war effect should be applied across the board, even to things that we are used to thinking of as well known.

So if you really meant it when you said FOW should be applied more thoroughly to battles, I couldn't agree more.


I used to be concerned that it was too easy to fight back-to-back battles until I remembered that the time-frame was two weeks, enough to pull yourself back together and start all over again.

Concerning FOW, yes, we share the same point of view. But we have also noticed that, for gameplay pupose, AI shouldn't have the same restriction as the players and thus gain a small advantage over them, but maybe it's tricky...
Your last remark makes sense in AACW; for NCP with 1 week a turn, things are different but I wanted to say that we lose an immersive dimension (if it's what we are searching for) with a too high detailed battle report.
Then, that said, I'm not unhappy with all those numbers and small informative symbols...

[Jabberwock]

I for one, would like to see a hidden numbers as an option, but only if it was implemented along with an immersive battle report. How else would I figure out which were my best brigade, division, and corps commanders, deserving of promotions? Would I be flooded with reports from army commanders about their subordinates each turn? Would I be trying to play the part of supreme commander, or the entire war department, or both?

I also understand the magnitude of the task it would be for PhilThib to design the systems and for Pocus to build both and get them to work correctly. Maybe for AACW2?

[Evren]

Jabberwock, it wasn't my intention to force designers for such a change, as i mentioned in the first post. You already know that you can see who fought well and earned a promotion after the battle anyway, so it is just like getting a report or an advise on who to promote. My opinion was about the detailed unit stats at first (like offensive fire values and such..). And leader traits like fast mover, so the units will move 15% faster under the command of such a commander(not 14 or 16), no matter what.

Still, it was an opinion, i didn't think about what to do for a major programming change. I just wanted to hear opinions also.

[soundoff]

For me the issue with ratings has always been the tendency in games to set the ratings in 'tablets of stone'. Thus a Grant being 6-6-4 not just for much or most of the time but ALWAYS just does not seem right. Such tight ratings may work very well for individual senarios but not I think for campaigns over time.

Now to my mind one way of bringing uncertainty into the equation would have been to percentage randomise the actual stats each turn. So that you did not get truely silly results such as a Grant becoming a 1-0-0 it should be possible to set a limit below which a commanders rating would never fall. Taking the Grant example say 3-4-2.

Anyway just my humble thought. I do accept though, that knowing the 'numbers' even at this early stage in my AGEOD AACW career there are some commanders I am only employing in 'extremis'

[Widell]

Hmmm, moving target ratings doesn't feel like fun. Shifting leaders around to make sure the best combo of leaders are available where they can be put to good use is already a big task, specially when playing with randomized stats.

Options to control what degree of FOW should be applied is the way to go IMHO, maybe with an option to improve the knowledge about ones own generals and units over time although this may be a huge redesign(?).

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[tagwyn]

I would leave it the way it is. Change only for promotions, move Mac to Cleveland, etc. If you want to play randomized ranks, you can elect to do so. To some extent you would be justified in doing that but the thought of people like Beast Butler showing up as a 6-6-4 would be too much to stomach!! 3-1-1 rank for all new brigadiers is a bit too low. All these men had some reputation. apy: