I'm done

[vicberg]

First and probably last post.

This game is frustrating beyond belief. Positives: Slick look and feel with the comic book style intros. Elegant and simple UI. Good graphics and sounds. Closet thing to ASL that I've found in years of looking. Negatives: The mechanics in general are poor. Graphics and UI can't overcome it.

1) OP fire...a lot already said in this forum on this. I have 3 panzers flanked and they move and shoot first. Not much more I can do tactics wise. Net result is the game feels totally random. a crapshoot every time I play. Perhaps that's realistic (I don't think so at all, but the argument could be made), but not fun to play. Removes tactics far too much. There should be a chance that the flanked tank attacks first, but it should be very low and if being attacked from rear almost impossible.
2) Retreat rules on tanks....worst thing that can happen is I cause a retreat on a tank. Can't hit the retreating tank for my life, despite 35-45% chances. I don't bother to attack retreating tanks anymore. Let them rally and I have a better chance to kill them when they come back.
3) Retreating tanks should retreat on THIER turn and be subject to OP fire as they retreat. They shouldn't get a full move, retreat on my turn, and then get another full move on their turn. Also, a unit would NEVER turn around to retreat. They wouldn't take the time while the enemy is firing shells at them. They would kick into reverse and get out of there.
4) Turning within sight of the enemy doesn't cause an enemy OP fire. You can turn your tank to your content without anyone doing anything. Seems like movement and firing are the only triggers for OP. Hello, turning IS movement.
5) FOW - people stick their heads out to look for enemies. Machine guns are sticking out of windows. Guns can be seen. There should be a chance to spot concealed units without having to get next to them (and get slaughtered without scouts), modified by range and spotter movement, or otherwise spend ages suppressing every possible spot out there.
6) Why can tanks only attack twice but can OP 3 times (or more it seems). Ok, so Rate of Fire isn't probably in this game and neither is slow turreted tanks (Germans) or gyrostabilizers (americans)....fine...everyone attacks and defends twice. Makes no sense that a tank which can attack twice suddenly defends 3 or more times.

This is just a small list but I can't add more because the forum software doesn't make it easy to do large posts. It's a simple UI (which is good), with far too simple game mechanics that aren't fun to play.

[LOGAN5]

1) actually this is contradictory to what we all been discussing, we were saying that the random numbers were not random enough..

maybe we should delete that thread because people are getting the impression the game is broken... the game is just fine we are all just trying to tweak it. The complaints you are reading a very minor and not game breaking its still a lot of fun you just catch a bad break once and a while, its all in your perception.. hard to believe but its true

[vicberg]

Random numbers may fix the OP issue, but doesn't fix the deficencies in the overall game mechanics. FOW requiring someone to be next to a concealed enemy without a chance to spot has NOTHING to do with random numbers. It's the way the game works. Not being able to hit a retreating tank may be a bug, but the retreating tanks ability to retreat on the opponents turn isn't a result of random numbers. Same with turning a tank in sight of an enemy or quite a few other mechanics issues.

OP is far and away the biggest problem. I grant you that. I have a bunch of infantry on a hill in fortified positions facing towards the enemy axis and it's random whether they shoot or not. I'm playing the AI and have done the scenario 10 times. Each time, who knows what's going to happen? Most of the time, my guys don't shoot and get slaughtered. Not fun. Fixing the OP problem would be big, but it's not enough. The guy who just left the forum (forgot his handle) who mentioned the fatal flow of random dice is probably on the mark. The game is way TOO random. Why bother with tactics. Won't make a difference. Throw your troops out there and hope for the dice gods to smile.

[LOGAN5]

We will see what happens, usually with online game communities like this after a while people tend to know who the "good" players are, in a crap shoot there are no "good" players . You just have to try to maximize your percentage to kill and if you still don't hit nothing you can do about it... I do agree with you about trying to beat a dead horse... once you start missing a retreating unit just forget about it... This might be one of those "perceptions" but sometimes things just don't want to die.

[vicberg]

I'm going to throw into the mix the ASL model (way too complicated, but at a basic level fits with this game). Attacker fires first if not moving. Defender fires second modified by how much they have to turret, pivot, etc. to see the attacker (or moving attacker). Attacker fires again for all units that moved (and they attack at a minus). ASL throws in thousands of rules that make it much too complicated, but the basic idea works.

This game doesn't provide anything to bet upon. There is no telling what is going to happen. If I'm flanking or attacking from the rear an enemy tank, I should have a VERY high chance to attack first and the enemy tank should be VERY minused if having to turret to hit me. If the enemy tanks starts to pivot to turn his front armor to face me, I should get a very high chance to pop a few rounds into him while the tank is pivoting. Doubtful that turreting is coming into play and doubtful pivoting is coming into play and it's obvious to me that flanking really isn't coming into play for that matter. It's too random, too simplistic. I believe there's a bunch of simple percentage chances for everything to occur, not taking into account much else. So I believe you are going the wrong direction with your discourse. I'll probably get flamed for the last remark. Apologies, but since I'm stepping away from this game, I don't feel so bad. I'm really hoping that something is done to make this game more than style and look. A bit more substance is needed.

[LOGAN5]

the turret stuff doesn't bother me at all i don't think it wouldn't add much to the gameplay, it is something you either have in a game or don't.. i mean if tanks can't back up then putting all these rules about turret movement is ridiculous, turrets in tanks don't have to face the direction of movement either.. but its just a matter of what do you want to put in your game or not... you gotta draw the line somewhere, everyone wants to make the perfect all-inclusive game but its just not going to happen

[vicberg]

I believe you are missing the point. All of the OP questions come down to timing. When does X attack and when does Y counter attack and lets throw some percentage chance rolls into the equation. That's the fundamental question and why I believe this game has very basics percentages that's its using to detemine who attacks what and why this game is so random. Turret pivoting is a timing issue. How can someone move into an enemies view, exposing their flank, THEN turret, fire not just once, but sometimes twice, without the opponent getting a shot in...when facing head on, not turreting at all and probably in self interest, expecting and looking for an enemy....Could the enemy do it? Yes. Likely? No. This game has none of these factors built in. It's pretty obvious. Its a very simple game and will work for quite a few people, but don't think that it's actually representative of any sort of reality. It's fluff.

So draw a line. It's a pretty game, not realistic, enjoy it, if that's what you want, but I'm tired of flash.

[MesaDon]

While we all can agree that there are aspect of this game we don't like or feel work still taken in the context that it is only a game and basically a light game at that, I find it a great deal of fun and as for a crap shoot, I am possibly the worst player there is, far to rash etc. and as it should be I lose very frequently to better players actually all the time to better players. So much for the crap shoot aspect. Considering that this is one of the few effective forums out there to actually have give and take with the developers, I and I expect many others realise that frequently our concerns are taken up and corrected. It is a shame that someone should just up and leave without waiting to see if changes are made and be able to help effect those changes with constructive criticism. Thought I would make this a long post in celebration of this being my 200th post. Since it is a momentous occasion, Pip, do I get some special prize or something.

[LOGAN5]

I understand where he is coming from, he wants a little more realistic of a simulation. I mean take the game for what it is, especially multiplayer.. each side has the same capabilities and you just have to work within the parameters of the game. Use a little bit of imagination, think of it a little more abstracted.. I mean 2 tanks facing off in a field will not stop firing until 1 of them is dead, and if there are more tanks all hell will break lose at once, not just 1 side firing and then the next. Turn based games are unrealistic by nature so just learn to enjoy what you can do instead of bickering about what the game can't do...

[junk2drive]

The game has only been out for a while. Give it some time and maybe Slitherine will have an expansion with tough mode or something. BA has to stay within the context of the contract with BBC.

[vicberg]

I'm not going to completely abandon it...it has too much potential. I bit more depth. I bit less randrom fluff.

[Melnibone]

Sound tactics are rewarded in this game. I use many of the similar tactics I used in multi player Combat Mission for years. I must have played 30 online battles of this game by now and lost less than 5 or 6 across all the scenarios. IMHO it is nothing like a "crap shoot". Combined arms, good positioning and timing all pay off. I disagree about it being fluff. It's a game - pitched almost perfectly and a breath of fresh air. Most importantly for me it's great fun. I managed 4 turns this morning as I ate my breakfast - smiling throughout. Not every game needs to be a serious simulation. Relax and enjoy what we've got. Yes, I'm sure the game can be improved but I really hope they never over complicate this great game with too many extra functions to please some.

[IainMcNeil]

Vicberg I think there may be reasons you dont understand effecting why your troops open fire or not.

We're looknig at ways to give more feedback.

* Units that are hidden will not shoot and reveal their position unless they have a signifcant chance to hurt the enemy, or when they feel its time to shoot or die.
* Units that are huting are harder to detect and your men may not notice them.
* Units always get a bonus shot in the opponents turn for opportunity fire. If they did nto shoot in their turn they also get their base 2 shots. If they are elite they can get an additional bonus shot.
* Units that are visible will fire all but their last shot at anythign they detect. Their last shot will be saved for something they think they can hurt, or when they feel its time to shoot or die.
* Units that are close to be suppressed will fire their last shot as there is a good chance that waiting for the enemy to shoot will mean you're suppressed and never get teh chance to fire back.
* The criteria for damaging the enemy reduces as they get closer. E.g. at long range you might need a 25% chane to use your last shot or fire from cover. When adjacent you always shoot, even with a 0% chance to hurt them.
* Vehicles have variable detection rates. They are best in the forward 90 degrees. Weaker in teh side and poor to teh rear. Closed top tansk are worse and tanks without turrets even worse. Some tanks were notorious for having poor visibility and these are also heavily penalised on detection.
* Retreating tanks are usually good targets to shoot at as you often get rear/side armour shots. If you missed you were just unlucky. A 35% chance to miss means you shoudl hiut 1 in 3 times. There is a ~1 in 8 chance you would shoot 5 times in a row and miss. 1 in 8 is a pretty common occurance. There is a ~1 in 60 chance you'd shoot and miss 10 times in a row. Again this is not that unusual. OPerception in game woudl be that it was broken, but it is realistic and working as intended.

I think this cover the main points.

[Acererak]

I'm not going to completely abandon it...it has too much potential. I bit more depth. I bit less randrom fluff.

Then would you mind editing the title of your thread if possible?

Fine enough if you have complaints and want to discuss them in the forums. Constructive crticism is great for any game and i hope this forum stays that way, as we will all get the reward of a better game (more fun for us) and the company the reward of more ppl buying it.

But having posts like this (mainly the title, since everything else goes in a fine direction, but the title can do some damage) don´t help at all.

And besides, never understood the reason of someone not liking a game, and having the need of coming to the forums to let us know he is leaving. Honestly, would you care if i told you so?

Cheers

[IainMcNeil]

It's always good to hear from people who are not enjoying the game and we'll do what we can to help.

I think thw issue is feedback - not sure how to fix it but we need to help you guys better understand what is going on under the hood.

[PirateJock_Wargamer]

We're looknig at ways to give more feedback.

* Units that are hidden will not shoot and reveal their position unless they have a signifcant chance to hurt the enemy, or when they feel its time to shoot or die.
* Units that are huting are harder to detect and your men may not notice them.
* Units always get a bonus shot in the opponents turn for opportunity fire. If they did nto shoot in their turn they also get their base 2 shots. If they are elite they can get an additional bonus shot.
* Units that are visible will fire all but their last shot at anythign they detect. Their last shot will be saved for something they think they can hurt, or when they feel its time to shoot or die.
* Units that are close to be suppressed will fire their last shot as there is a good chance that waiting for the enemy to shoot will mean you're suppressed and never get teh chance to fire back.
* The criteria for damaging the enemy reduces as they get closer. E.g. at long range you might need a 25% chane to use your last shot or fire from cover. When adjacent you always shoot, even with a 0% chance to hurt them.
* Vehicles have variable detection rates. They are best in the forward 90 degrees. Weaker in teh side and poor to teh rear. Closed top tansk are worse and tanks without turrets even worse. Some tanks were notorious for having poor visibility and these are also heavily penalised on detection.
* Retreating tanks are usually good targets to shoot at as you often get rear/side armour shots. If you missed you were just unlucky. A 35% chance to miss means you shoudl hiut 1 in 3 times. There is a ~1 in 8 chance you would shoot 5 times in a row and miss. 1 in 8 is a pretty common occurance. There is a ~1 in 60 chance you'd shoot and miss 10 times in a row. Again this is not that unusual. OPerception in game woudl be that it was broken, but it is realistic and working as intended.

Very useful post as shows variables affecting the opfire decision - and I don't think there was anything in there about the threat posed by the target or your unit's chance of hitting/penetrating. Not what I'd call a simplistic game However, because of the complexity it is going to take time to fine-tune this ... and one of the advantages of being able to view the scripts is that, if you have the inclination, more people can work out how the game functions and come up with ways of improving game mechanics.

Good luck in coming up with ways of providing enough game feedback without (i) cluttering up the interface/screen and (ii) affecting the flow of the game. I quite enjoy the shock of not knowing if a unit (on both sides) is going to opfire ... though my wife does tut at the language occasionally!

[IainMcNeil]

It is possible that there is a bug somewhere in the open fire code for opportunity fire, as it is very complex, and hard to test. If anyone has any situations with saved games where it seems wrong we will investigate.

It may also be that the logic we have is not quite right. E.g. opening fire when morale is less than 80 may not be teh best thing to do. The code may be working as intended but there may be better criteria for deciding when to fire.

What I can say is that it will behave exactly the same in single & multiplayer so a saved game in single player just before something odd happens would be ideal for us to help track thigns down, as this should be repeatable.

The firing code is much easier to read - if the % chance is shown, the is the actual chance used to calculate a kill so I can't see any way it can be different, especially in teh ways people are saying with runs of bad/good luck. This is just the way it is perceived. The only thing we could do here is say that every time you missed you were more likely to hit on the next shot and every time you hit you were more likely to miss on the next shot. That feels very wrong to me

[PirateJock_Wargamer]

It is possible that there is a bug somewhere in the open fire code for opportunity fire, as it is very complex, and hard to test. If anyone has any situations with saved games where it seems wrong we will investigate.

Is there a prize if someone finds one

It may also be that the logic we have is not quite right. E.g. opening fire when morale is less than 80 may not be teh best thing to do. The code may be working as intended but there may be better criteria for deciding when to fire.

This is where the fine tuning comes in.

The firing code is much easier to read - if the % chance is shown, the is the actual chance used to calculate a kill so I can't see any way it can be different, especially in teh ways people are saying with runs of bad/good luck. This is just the way it is perceived. The only thing we could do here is say that every time you missed you were more likely to hit on the next shot and every time you hit you were more likely to miss on the next shot. That feels very wrong to me..

Doesn't the first happen already, i.e. if you don't kill on first shot then got increase chance (10% ?) on subsequent shot? Don't think if you hit on first shot more likely to miss on 2nd shot is a good idea ... that's not done now is it?

[IainMcNeil]

Yes you do get +10% per shot model improved accuracy when firing at the same target. What I'm talking about is a side bonus, so each time your side misses all your side would get a bonus to hit, until they hit. This is what Civ 5 does to try and address the public perception of probability which seems very different to the reality of probability Sid Meir did a very interesting talk on it.

[PirateJock_Wargamer]

Here's a link to a related article .... ain't Google great