Battle Reporting (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe



Message

bwheatley -> Battle Reporting (12/31/2016 2:09:36 AM)

In HotSeat and i'm going to assume PBEM++ when it comes, the lack of some sort of battle report makes it really hard for me to know what's going on.

I just open a turn and have 3 british fighter units destroyed, no idea what killed them, what quality force, anything. To me that is a pretty major gap in recon. It really is something for me that I think needs a little work. I don't need an Advanced Tactics style move by move report. But having 3 fighter units wiped out, your leadership would know at least in generalities what type of force attacked. Even if we just get a general battle overview that shows hexes where a battle took place along with a basic report. Your fighter unit was attacked by a german bomber, intercepting fighter battled escort, blah.

I've owned all 3 SC games they are all great but I'd really like to see these improvements to make the game playable against another human.
The improvements over SC2 have been very nice as well, don't want you to think i'm trying to be anything but constructive.

Thanks!



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Battle Reporting (12/31/2016 3:31:43 AM)

quote:

Even if we just get a general battle overview that shows hexes where a battle took place along with a basic report.

I can agree. I've had the same concerns but the only solution that my goofy mind came up with was a replay of the specific combat when clicked on in the report, which seems like a ton of work to implement so not worth it [:'(]



bwheatley -> RE: Battle Reporting (1/3/2017 4:24:17 PM)

From my perspective to perhaps shed some light on how jarring it is.

Barbarossa started and turn after turn I open to see my front line gone, just a FOW shade along the whole line.
I have no idea what forces the enemy has because my units die before the line ever reaches them.
In north africa I have a better understanding of what the enemy has, but I still open my turn to see El Alamein has fallen and a 10 strength AT unit in the city, with my Air force in tatters.

I have no idea what happened, to open your turn and see that is very jarring, and the lack of visibility makes it feel "unfair" even when
it most likely is fair but left to just the human mind we're always going to make up a story that fits. And it's not a story of the overwhelming force of the enemy it's a story that the game engine is not working properly.

To me this is a big deal and is really hampering my desire to play against another human. I just hope this is an issue that will be addressed as part of the PBEM+ update. I'm only giving constructive feedback in order to help the Matrix/Slitherine team who produce games that I've enjoyed playing for 22 years now, holy crap 22 years since Steel Panthers.

Thanks for being a community I've enjoyed being a part of since I was a teenager. :)





sPzAbt653 -> RE: Battle Reporting (1/3/2017 6:18:31 PM)

quote:

I have no idea what forces the enemy has because my units die before the line ever reaches them.

I feel that is part of the FoW, which is too foggy in my opinion, especially so for land and air units. These units should always be represented on the map, with FoW representing them only as type and size. For this game it doesn't seem proper to only know what units are adjacent to friendly units while all others are completely unknown.



The Land -> RE: Battle Reporting (1/3/2017 8:16:25 PM)

Shouldn't the start of a PBEM turn show the same information that you get during the AI's turn of a single-player game?



jzardos -> RE: Battle Reporting (1/9/2017 7:42:36 PM)

We all got ripped off here. This is why I should never by Matrix/Slithern games until a year after the release. In the case of MWiF, maybe 5 years or more .. depressing topic.
I think the developers (Huber) must have had some really strict deadlines and had to throw to the wind some features and play balance testing. No other way to explain this level of incompetence in releasing a game for which people have to pay this kind of $$.



jzardos -> RE: Battle Reporting (1/9/2017 7:47:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

I have no idea what forces the enemy has because my units die before the line ever reaches them.

I feel that is part of the FoW, which is too foggy in my opinion, especially so for land and air units. These units should always be represented on the map, with FoW representing them only as type and size. For this game it doesn't seem proper to only know what units are adjacent to friendly units while all others are completely unknown.



you can't be serious here? That is FoW? Good laugh, thanks. But serious now. IMO (and most if the gaming community) one of the most important features in a war simulations is to see the combat results. You spend your time building, maneuvering, improving your units and all to never understand how they got destroyed, retreated, and/or reduced? Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong here. Play any other decent WW2 strategy game and you'll see the difference.



jzardos -> RE: Battle Reporting (1/9/2017 7:50:09 PM)

I think Huber was on his death bed here when he had to pull the plug and release the game before he was penalized. So I might give him a pass here for such an unfortunate missing game feature.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Battle Reporting (1/9/2017 9:46:44 PM)

quote:

you can't be serious here?

I am serious enough to read the posts and respond intelligently, which you are not. Thanks for wasting out time.



ME262 -> RE: Battle Reporting (1/10/2017 1:45:28 AM)

I was so upset when I read what you had posted...I don't often respond to so such negative comments, but you sir have compelled me to do so.
it takes a lot of hard work and long ..long hours to create a work of such depth. your loud mouth elephant comments only magnify your ignorance .
your picture speaks volumes. in the future post something of value.

to the members of this game... excellent work! there will be tweaks. the beauty of these types of games... some of us respect the work and will wait for time of their release . carry on gentlemen[;)]



jzardos -> RE: Battle Reporting (1/10/2017 4:45:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ME262

I was so upset when I read what you had posted...I don't often respond to so such negative comments, but you sir have compelled me to do so.
it takes a lot of hard work and long ..long hours to create a work of such depth. your loud mouth elephant comments only magnify your ignorance .
your picture speaks volumes. in the future post something of value.

to the members of this game... excellent work! there will be tweaks. the beauty of these types of games... some of us respect the work and will wait for time of their release . carry on gentlemen[;)]


Lol, you can say what you want. I was upset too when I bought this game and found out there was no built in two player, glaring play balance issues, and no battle reports to have any clue what happen on an opponents turns (besides a one line if a unit was destroyed).

So be mad, your anger is coming from the root cause of mine... SCE. I could care less how you feel about me. I paid for a product, they didn't do me any favors. If I got the game for free my perspective would be different.



jzardos -> RE: Battle Reporting (1/10/2017 4:53:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ME262

I was so upset when I read what you had posted...I don't often respond to so such negative comments, but you sir have compelled me to do so.
it takes a lot of hard work and long ..long hours to create a work of such depth. your loud mouth elephant comments only magnify your ignorance .
your picture speaks volumes. in the future post something of value.

to the members of this game... excellent work! there will be tweaks. the beauty of these types of games... some of us respect the work and will wait for time of their release . carry on gentlemen[;)]

quote:

in the future post something of value.


oh and another thing about your silly snarky comment 'in the future post something of value. '
I posted something of value pertaining to this thread titled 'Battle Reports' Speaking about it in my experience and yes it was negative. Live with it. You posted absolutely nothing of value but your love for the game and some very weak backhanded insults. That's great, but it doesn't mean anything for this thread. You just wasted our time and some kb on a server somewhere. Go make your own post and title it 'I love SCE' or 'I'm an SCE fawner', IDC. Or maybe you're just too upset to do anything productive?



bobarossa -> RE: Battle Reporting (1/10/2017 2:19:27 PM)

And yet your manner of posting your opinion will do nothing but make people ignore it. So much bile, so little time.



Amicofritz -> RE: Battle Reporting (1/10/2017 6:39:08 PM)

Advice for you, jzardos: Go back to shooting defenseless, innocent animals, which seems to be your main achievement in life.



bobarossa -> RE: Battle Reporting (1/10/2017 8:29:47 PM)

Actually, that looks like they photoshopped a giant squirrel into a typical hunter pose. Kind of funny. I have nothing wrong with hunting for meat but then that's not the topic of this thread.



Bmorgan077 -> RE: Battle Reporting (1/10/2017 9:02:50 PM)

I think it's his g I joes



BillRunacre -> RE: Battle Reporting (1/11/2017 3:08:19 PM)

Hi everyone

Thanks for the feedback and whether it's positive or negative, please keep it coming, it is useful as everything is considered and gets thrown into the mix. So although we don't comment on every thread or post, many of you will find your names mentioned in the list of changes in future patches.

Game balance is a tricky area because overall I've seen reports/had saves from dozens upon dozens of games and while there are differences between them all, for every player who struggles with a side, there will be another who wins with it.

That said, I have implemented a few changes and will be discussing some further thoughts on this with Hubert once he is fully recovered and free to do so.

We hope to get things right and there will be improvements to come, including of course, multiplayer! [:)]

Bill



jzardos -> RE: Battle Reporting (1/11/2017 3:39:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amicofritz

Advice for you, jzardos: Go back to shooting defenseless, innocent animals, which seems to be your main achievement in life.



The picture you're referring to is not an animal I killed. It's actually poking fun at hunters whom I detest.
My advice to you is next time you're on a forum thread, do us all a favor and post something constructive. Some content that is actually related to the thread is what most people do. If you want to just make personal attacks on others to make up for some deficiencies in your life, please just refrain.



jzardos -> RE: Battle Reporting (1/11/2017 3:42:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bobarossa

And yet your manner of posting your opinion will do nothing but make people ignore it. So much bile, so little time.



Sorry to burst your 'I know best' mentality, but you're very wrong here. I won't get into the psychology here as it has nothing to do with the original thread.



Amicofritz -> RE: Battle Reporting (1/11/2017 3:50:59 PM)

I owe you an apology, jzardos. Didn't look close enough at the picture. Again sorry.



SlickWilhelm -> RE: Battle Reporting (1/11/2017 8:52:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jzardos

We all got ripped off here. This is why I should never by Matrix/Slithern games until a year after the release. In the case of MWiF, maybe 5 years or more .. depressing topic.
I think the developers (Huber) must have had some really strict deadlines and had to throw to the wind some features and play balance testing. No other way to explain this level of incompetence in releasing a game for which people have to pay this kind of $$.


I didn't get ripped off. I knew multiplayer wasn't in the game on release, and I've been wargaming long enough to know that not every feature makes the initial release.

I'm having so much fun with SC:E that I would call Hubert many other things instead of "incompetent": Brilliant, Innovative, clever are just three.

It's not what you said, jzardos, it's how you said it.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.765625