Suggestion for next patch (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan >> War Plan: Tech Support



Message

aoffen -> Suggestion for next patch (1/12/2022 1:07:48 PM)

Currently playing with an old board gaming mate. His first go at the game. He is finding the lack of feedback on the outcome of battles a little frustrating and I think I have to agree with him. Particularly air and naval battles, the instant combat report and the log file information are very sparse and minimalist. It is hard to parse much from it as to what is going on, which makes the game more difficult to get into and a bit dry.

So…..can I request some work in improving the information feedback loop in the combat reports and the combat logs - both for flavor and for game feedback.

Examples :
with aircraft combat - some idea of the success of the attack (other than strength loss inflicted), some feed back on who was firing and to what effect

For naval combat some flavor around who fired at who and scored hits, what the aircraft involved do. Etc

The data is there as the computations happen in the combat resolution but some form of enhanced reporting function would really be appreciated.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Suggestion for next patch (1/12/2022 4:20:04 PM)

It is modeled after War in the East. Their detail is about the same level as mine. They show different stats because they are on divisional level.

I'd have to completely rewrite the combat code to do this. Currently similar factors fire simultaneously in their combat order. So for navies all surface fires at once.
If I was to break this down I would have to fire units individually which is out of scope for a corps level game.

It is a lot of work. If you give me a game example so I can get a clearer picture it might help. But this will very unlikely be implemented in the v1 engine.



redrum68 -> RE: Suggestion for next patch (1/12/2022 5:26:27 PM)

The big thing for me would be more information on air portion of battles as all we see now is the name of the air units engaged and the resulting casualties. It would be good to see information about type of air unit it is, what tech level they have, approx experience/effectiveness, location/direction the enemy came from, some form of ratio like ground combat, etc. Its really hard to tell why I'm taking more or less air casualties than my opponent.

For naval combat, having some sort of approx searching percentage and what factors are contributing to it as well as showing how many times the fleet as already been "spotted" would help to understand if the player is doing the right things and just unlucky or if they have almost no chance of actually engaging the enemy.



stjeand -> RE: Suggestion for next patch (1/12/2022 5:47:23 PM)

I think that is FAR to much detail for either side to be provided. It would remove any hidden abilities of either side.

Just bomb every unit and you can tell everything about them? I don't like that. I want my units to have some secrets...that is why they are hidden behind the lines.

This would be useful for "testing" but in a live game? I am not interested as it turns this into a complete board game.
I like some information being hidden.

i.e. If I split up my surface fleet I don't want the enemy to know what each grouping of ships is...and they should not. EVEN when planes are used. How many times was it reported that a ship was sunk when it was not in the Pacific? Alot...

In fact I would rather there be "less" information about casuaties...more like War In the East / Pacific.

I attack...I think I killed 50% of a unit, where as in reality I only killed 15%...And they see what they think they did for damage over what really happened.

Fog of War...PLEASE do not take this away.



AGAIN perhaps there could be a check box created in the next version where if both sides decide they want all the info then they are provided it.
I would only use it for test...I like NOT knowing everything.



ncc1701e -> RE: Suggestion for next patch (1/12/2022 7:52:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stjeand

I like NOT knowing everything.


I would love to see indication of ships sunk whereas this is not true. [:)]



sveint -> RE: Suggestion for next patch (1/12/2022 8:35:36 PM)

Fog of War



stjeand -> RE: Suggestion for next patch (1/12/2022 8:49:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e
I would love to see indication of ships sunk whereas this is not true. [:)]


Agreed.

I read some story where the Japanese pilots returned from their Midway mission and stated they had sunk multiple carriers...whereas we know this all to be false.

I don't think this is possible for the current version but in the future...perhaps it would be.


We all know this is not possible at all in a board game...but when you don't know...you change how to play heavily.

Think of the BOA.

How many ships did German Uboat commanders report they sunk that they did not?
How many subs did the UK report they sunk when they did not?

A lot of interesting possibilities.

IF the Germans THINK they have sunk X MS they may stop building subs and focus on land...when really they have only sunk Y which is way less than they thought and the UK is is better shape than previously thought.



canuckgamer -> RE: Suggestion for next patch (1/13/2022 3:26:22 AM)

I like the current level of detail and complexity as I consider War Plan to be a mix of a board and computer wargame. Adding things like the possibility of inaccurate battle results moves it more toward a simulation and I have no idea how you would model the probability of such reports. For example in the battle of Midway one of the key moments occurred when a Japanese search plane radioed that he had spotted 10 (I think that was the number) American surface ships but not the make up of the ships, i.e. whether there were any carriers.



stjeand -> RE: Suggestion for next patch (1/13/2022 10:03:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: canuckgamer

I like the current level of detail and complexity as I consider War Plan to be a mix of a board and computer wargame. Adding things like the possibility of inaccurate battle results moves it more toward a simulation and I have no idea how you would model the probability of such reports. For example in the battle of Midway one of the key moments occurred when a Japanese search plane radioed that he had spotted 10 (I think that was the number) American surface ships but not the make up of the ships, i.e. whether there were any carriers.



That is what you get most of the time today...

You see a fleet at sea...it gives you the believed makeup of it.

I have seen a stack of 5 subs before and we all know that at most there can be 3.


I am not saying we go this route...just saying it would be interesting if a good model could be made.
It will NOT in WP 1...it would have to be something in WP II



governato -> Introduce some 'Same side FOW' (1/13/2022 7:09:28 PM)

I really like FOW. The more the better! I like to think the player as a front commander/Minister of Production, not a mix of corps/army general/quartermaster (GWITE is perfect at that already)...And it is often easy to make FOW 'optional' for those who like a boardgame feel to the game.

I also wish there was some 'your own side' FOW as well. Not sure if already in the game but

- One easy (?!) option would be to make the strength of our own units/supply/production more of a `guesstimate', introducing some errors in the visualization of info.
That 'd make it more difficult to get 'perfect odds' when planning attacks etc.


- It'd be great to implement situations when a unit 'd not be able to follow orders (say lose MPs due to poor C&C, or poor multi hex attacks coordination) ... the Red Army 'd often lose track of entire divisions and even entire armies in its darkest days.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.484375