Jump to content

Disabling of combat losses prediction


Recommended Posts

I would strongly opt for a possibility of disabling combat losses prediction via the advance settings options. It would be another important "fog of war" factor in the game. The WWI & WWII generals could never exactly predict if their offensive would be a success or not. They just knew more or less what enemy units were they facing and what was their own strenght. Based on that they were taking the decisions if to attack or if to stay in the defensive and gather some more units and support in order to gain a superiority, that would guarantee them success in the upcoming offensive.

In one of the games in currently play as Entente ( "Fate of Nations" ), the CP lost 7 corps on the Western Front during the first two turns. If I didn't see the losses prediction before each combat, it would force me to act more cautiously and the match wouldn't degenerate into such a neverending slaughter festival.

Here an example:

combatlosses.png

Based on the losses prediction I would never attack the German Ist Bavarian corps, because it's obvious that it would only result in unnecessary British casualties. If the potential losses were not visible, I might risk an attack considering the strenght of the Canadian unit. There are of course ways to calculate the combat result, considering the unit morale, readiness and the terrain, but it is not possible to do it before each combat. The bottom line is, that without the combat losses predition, the game would be more unpredictable and even more exciting:)

Comrade Ivanov

Ps. Maybe there is already a way to swich of the losses prediction but I haven't noticed? :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comrade Ivanov, that's an excellent idea. Removing battle losses prediction would mean REAL fog of war. Additionally players should still be able to view enemy supply or readiness, because in real battlefield situation these values could have been known by observation or even intelligence actions. On the other hand, there could be an option that readiness, morale or supply of enemy units are visible only after 1-2 turns that your units spent on the field next to them.

PS

Battlefront team, thanks for great game and, literally, hundreds of hours of fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, there could be an option that readiness, morale or supply of enemy units are visible only after 1-2 turns that your units spent on the field next to them.

Brilliant idea Ghost of War! It would be another step towards representing the real fog of war in the game.

Bill, here I post the image again:

combatlosses.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing that came to my mind after taking Ivanov's idea into consideration: the most unrealistic feature of the game (in my opinion) is that you can attack the enemy all the time without any break, even in winter.

On operational level in WW I, it would be impossible, mainly because of supply. Fog of war settings that were proposed here could limit this constant offensive, because players wouldn't know from the begining if there is point in attacking.

The only drawback of such optional setting is that it would slow down the game a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slowing down the game would be in my opinion actually a big plus. You may have noticed that in the games you play ( against both AI or a Humanized Terminator :D ), the course of action tends to unfold much faster, than in the reality. For example in WWI games the Germans usually manage to capture Verdun in 1915 and knock Russia out of the war in 1916. In WWII campaigns the Allies are usually ready to launch the D-Day in 1943 and so on. It happens partly due to the fact that with the current losses prediction system, the players are not affraid to go on the neverending offensive.

Sometimes it's worth slowing down a bit in order to enjoy the beautiful nature and views around us...;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. I don't agree outright that this would be a good idea. For one, aren't the casualty estimates based on calculable factors that if you spent a lot of time calculating, you'd be able to decipher? That is, besides the unknown factors - but the estimate doesn't take those into account either.

It would make the game even more reliant on long experience in playing, because the veterans would be able to make better estimates purely based on experience. ((And no, not all newcomers to the game would automatically lose against experienced players anyway.))

Third, I think it's unrealistic to think that commanders had no idea of the odds they were facing. However, attacks like the disastrous Tannenberg or even the early attack into Serbia DID happen, and those kind of disasters probably didn't happen by "bad luck" and counterattacks alone. I would support making more factors into "unknowables", and I might also support enemy readiness something that isn't automatically known - estimates being reliant on the ratings of the HQs the units are subjected under - a rating of 4 might have 60% chance of an accurate estimate, while a rating 8 could have a 90% chance, for example - except for unknown factors again, of course. If the check fails, a random, reasonable result would be presented instead - and it might even be the correct one by chance. And spending further turns next to the unit(s) would give another chance to correctly estimate their readiness again (and if estimated correctly it would stick until separation).

Unled units could be made to attack blind - that's all right for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. I don't agree outright that this would be a good idea. For one, aren't the casualty estimates based on calculable factors that if you spent a lot of time calculating, you'd be able to decipher? That is, besides the unknown factors - but the estimate doesn't take those into account either.

It would make the game even more reliant on long experience in playing, because the veterans would be able to make better estimates purely based on experience. ((And no, not all newcomers to the game would automatically lose against experienced players anyway.))

Third, I think it's unrealistic to think that commanders had no idea of the odds they were facing. I would support making more factors into "unknowables", and I might also support casualty estimates being reliant on the ratings of the HQs the units are subjected under - a rating of 4 might have 60% chance of an accurate estimate, while a rating 8 could have a 90% chance, for example - except for unknown factors again, of course. If the check fails, a random, reasonable result would be presented instead - and it might even be the correct one by chance.

Unled units could be made to attack blind - that's all right for me.

What you propose certainly makes sense, but it would in my opinion complicate things a too much. What we are asking here for, is just an option of switching off losses estimate. Whoever wishes to see the combat result displayed before each combat just as it is now, could have a possibility of choosing it via settings. Keeping things simple is a key to a success of a SC series.

As a moderetely experienced player, I promise here solemnly that have no intention of calculating combat results based on calculable or any other factors. It would just kill all the fun for me :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This slowing down thing could instead be accomplished by supply & readiness drops after battles, even victorious ones - or greater ones, at least. Victories would increase morale more, though.

This actually happenes in the game but does not help too much in slowing down. It is correct that in reality the offensives were limited by the supply but on more general scale. Even countries like Germany or France were not able to sustain such a protracted offensives as you are able to perform in the game. In order to represent it, the designers would need to implement a completely new supply model, somehow connectd to the industrial capacity of each country and it's national morale... Again - it would complicate things too much. Disabling losses prediction would be a simple sollution to this problem, that would be possible to introduce even with the next patch. Bill? Hubert? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just would like to add one more thought to the subject above. What is the most prevailing and haunting image of the WWI warfare? Waves of infantry going over the top, which are then subsequently slaughtered by the enemy's fire in a futile attempt to achieve a breakthrough.

the_battle_of_the_somme_film_image1.jpg

Those attacks were always preceded by days or even weeks of preliminary artilery bombardment and the soldiers were occupying their trenches during long months before the attack finnaly happened. It gave them many opportunities to gather a lot of intelligence about the enemy they were facing. Yet the prolonged bombardment and intelligence, in many cases didn't guarantee a success of the upcoming offensive. There was always a big margin of risk and uncertainty involved. Due to the fact that in the game the losses estimate is displayed now before each combat, most of the attacks are successful and result in destroying of the enemy's unit. An option to switch off the combat losses estimate, would be a great step forward in order to recreate the atmosfere and horror of the WWI or WWII battlefields.

grave.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I certainly don't mind the option, unless it somehow becomes the only accepted way of playing in the PBEM community, and makes it harder to get a normal game.

But I know some people get on the fence on things like these...

I like the idea of the battle reports getting more reliably accurate with more time and better HQs.

One would assume that this would definitely reduce assaults after moving a great deal, whereas it would be hard to judge when to make a prepared attack. For example, on the Western Front, the estimate shows 3-0 for the defenders even though the readiness is the same, with no river in between, in the open, but entrenched to level 3...That's pretty rough.

Plus, one could "cheat" and play a ghost game (hotseat) alongside the PBEM and replicate the moves, it would give an idea of the battle results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This should be made dependent on your intel level of progress- higher intel means you have better estimates of enemy formations. But not complete- present battle predictions are a little too far fetch even you would say the units have been facing each other for several months and that should give them accurate intel. This would make air scouting more important if it would help in gathering formation intel as it truly was in WW1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This should be made dependent on your intel level of progress- higher intel means you have better estimates of enemy formations. But not complete- present battle predictions are a little too far fetch even you would say the units have been facing each other for several months and that should give them accurate intel. This would make air scouting more important if it would help in gathering formation intel as it truly was in WW1.

I would still go for an optionion of completely switching off combat result estimate. Then if we would like to go more advanced, that kind of information about enemy units like their morale or readiness, would depend on aerial recon and intelligence tech level.

By the way the current intelligence reports, that randomly spot 2 or 3 enemy units, are not very useful and sometimes create more confusion than actual help ( unless a hiding U-boot is spotted ). My favorite is:

"A Volkssturm unit has been spotted in Breslau"

-Oh yes, thank you very much. This is a highly useful information about a top secret, crack German unit. Mr chief of intelligence - you are fired! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A Volkssturm unit has been spotted in Breslau"

-Oh yes, thank you very much. This is a highly useful information about a top secret, crack German unit. Mr chief of intelligence - you are fired! :D

Instead of firing I would bring him in front of firing squad. HAHA, I AM SO EVIL :D

But seriously, sometimes it makes me crazy too when intelligence shows a report of a unit which is placed 5000 km away from the frontline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus, one could "cheat" and play a ghost game (hotseat) alongside the PBEM and replicate the moves, it would give an idea of the battle results.

Playing a ghost game in order to replicate the combat results? What a devilish idea! I'm a bit scared now...:eek:

Seriously though, I don't even rechearse the scenarios against AI and don't like playing the same campaigns, against the same opponents. The key of winning is a clever overall strategy, not calculating result of each combat. Foch, Ludendorff, Montgomery, Patton or Rommel had only one chance to take right decission at the time and no possibility to repeat their moves. Their only judge is the history... Playing the game I just want to know how it would feel to be in their shoes. The greatest commanders were not mathematicians. They were warriors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. I go as far as taking away any pre-set research points in intelligence, I find it so useless and annoying - and the 5% discount in research is neglible, I probably am better off getting the extra 50 MPPs outright in the beginning where money is tight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...