My WW1 wish for AGEOD

[wodin]

After reading the big manual I realise this game has alot more to it than I originally thought. It always seemed to me that combat was a little to abstracted. Its not as much as I thought it was.

Still I wish that AGEOD had made a WW1 game using their main engine. I'm a stickler for seeing how many troops go into battle and how many became casualties etc etc...also ther combat system has far more to it than this game. Counter flipping to wounded status isn't really detailed enough for me....mainly from the immersion point of view.

So on the one hand it is a really good game but at the same time I see it as the game that will stop AGEOD making a WW1 game using their normal engine. Shame as that would be one hell of a game that I'd snap up in a moment.

[NefariousKoel]

I don't agree, here.

While I like AGEOD's own games, I enjoy having some say in how the battle goes after it's started. Using counters and "flipping" is just tabletop style which is what this one's based on. It should come naturally to old-timers. [;)]

[wodin]

Not saying you shouldn't have a say what I want to see is exactly how many men are in combat and how many casualties. The system at present is fine just add the a man count!

[Aurelian]

Adding a man count would be nothing more than a "flavor" add which would do nothing for playability.
 
IIRC, it's the same with AACW. A flavor addition which has no effect on how the battles are done or how the game is played.
 
Casuallty counts didn't seem to concern WW1 generals anyway.

[wodin]

Never said it was anything other than chrome...so what...I'd find it would add heaps to immersion...

[06 Maestro]

You could just estimate losses yourself. If a corp averaged 50,000 men (at start anyway) one hit could be, say 15,000 men ( a destroyed point)-one destroyed unit does not mean a destroyed corp. Any other hit could be about 5,000 men. Any battle should cost at least 1% of total force, even without a single hit (moral, shaken-whatever).

Using those numbers should get you a pretty good casualty list in a big battle. A Grand Offensive battle should amount to over 1/2 million in no time. It likely may not fit well in all theater at all times, but it is a starting point.

[CSSS]

The combat in this game , has ALOT of finess. If you control the where of a battle it helps, use the right general, and about ten other varaiables! It requires a great deal of skill and play to master this game. LOL just open up a battle log and read it after a battle.
The thing is that the game lierally changes on you while playing a minimum of three to five times through out the whole Grand Campaign.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Never said it was anything other than chrome...so what...I'd find it would add heaps to immersion...

Well, if it's a "so what", then there is no reason to add it. As pointed out, you could estimate it yourself.

Immersion. One can make their own.

[wodin]

Something I'd like...I'm a stickler for it.....wouldn't be to hard to incorporate.....others would like the same aswell....why are people so against it...its not something that would detract from the gameplay so whats the problem?

I have no problem with the game...its superb....one day I might ask for something I'd like to see in a game on the Matrix forum and someone will agree.

[JudgeDredd]

Nothing wrong with the request at all wodin. I know what you are asking - not that the combat mechanics be altered, but rather the system reports back on numbers of troops affected by the combat. Estimating the effects of the battle is a no no if you are looking to such a feature for immersion...estimating the numbers adds no immersion at all. Why anyone would object to that simple request is beyond me.

It doesn't bother me whether I see the stats or not - I have to be honest I never read them much in the Birth of America game anyway - but it's a request from a gamer that likes that kind of thing - that makes it a valid request from a user.

I don't understand why people would try to "prevent" your request being addressed or why they would try to negate the benefits of such a system just because they see no benefit...clearly it's a benefit to you and it doesn't bother me one iota if it was introduced...it's not going to hurt - them or me!

[wodin]

Cheers mate...exactly what I want....[:)]

[Randomizer]

Just $0.02, the combat system is highly abstract but from what I have seen so far it also does an excellent job of reproducing strategic combat in the Great War.  I would not be at all surprised if the combat engine treats RP's differently in different situations so and game-produced body count would in all likelyhood just be conjoured numbers that mean exactly nothing.  Changing the combat system to satisfy thse who just desire a body count could well rob it of its authenticity for little or no gain, other than the ghoulish satisfaction of knowing that 105,000 men (or whatever) had been killed on your side.  However, some people like that sort of thing but in my opinion it adds nothing to a rich and nuanced game like this one.
 
It is certainly possible that one RP varies over time as opposed to being an absolute value throughout the period and as 06 Maestro wrote in reply #6, one can easily estimate losses if it means that much to them.  Corps certainly vary in manpower strength as operational reorganizations and national replacement policies changed over time.
 
At the highest levels, the military leadership during WW1 tended to look upon casualties by conscription class, that is the number of men who came of military age at a certain time each year and the game reflects this tendency nicely from what I have seen.
 
I must say that WW1 is the most compelling computer game that I have played since Masters of Orion 2 was new, nicely done AGEOD.  Too bad real life committments have to drag me away from it...

[JudgeDredd]

Can I ask - how does "making the figures up" add immersion for the original poster? Perhaps one of you could enlighten him as to how conjouring up figures would in fact satisfy his desire to be immersed in each battle?

The guy already knows what he wants....the same thing that was in AGEODs other games...namely a simple count at the end of the battle showing dead, wounded, missing...for the life of me, I can't see how making those figures up himself would add to the "immersion". Having the game make the figures up (regardless of whether they are real or not) is another matter...so far as they were "believable", that is not 1 dead and 2 wounded in the lastest German assault, then I think he would be happy.

Why his request affects anyone else I am totally bewildered. If he was asking for the combat system to be changed...indeed if the combat system would have to be changed in order to achieve what he was asking, then every critic of his request here has a valid point. But he is neither asking for the combat system to be changed, nor has it been officially declared that the combat system would have to be changed in order for him to have that immersion factor he so desires from this small request that apparently affects no-one, though everyone thinks it will affect them.

If the game could indeed "conjour up" realistic numbers for combat, whilst not affecting other peoples enjoyment of the abstract combat system, to suggest they would mean nothing seems ludicrous. To you and others here - and even me - yep - they wouldn't mean an awful lot. The point I think is, for Wodin (who was merely pointing out if Calvinus could do such a thing, he would like it added to the wishlist), it would mean an awful lot more than either you or I see.

There is no reason why someone should not add a request to be added to a wishlist (which in all likelihood being as this is gold) that they think, for them, would enhance the game. It doesn't have to be a universal wishlist. It's his wishlist.

I'm not even bothered about people disagreeing...it's the way your disagreeing...
"nothing more than flavor"
"estimate losses yourself"
"open up a battle log and read it after a battle"
"immersion. One can make there own"

These are all ridiculous things to suggest to a person who simply asked that a numbers dialog be displayed after the battle to show the outcome in numbers whilst not changing the battle system, ergo not affecting anyone else, because (I'll bold and highlight for those that missed the simple point)it would add to immersion for HIM. The damned thing could be an option if it bothered so many people. Jeez...it's like you can't ask for something to be added to a game nowadays unless you have the express explicit agreement from everyone else.

Yes initially he alluded to the other AGEOD games, but he followed it with suggesting he didn't want the system changed, just some figures to allow him to see how costly a battle was. Surely if it's that easy for him to estimate himself, it wouldn't throw a spanner in the works of the system for the game to do that for him? Or have we forgotten that computer gaming should mean getting the computer to do the spreadsheet stuff for you?

[Aurelian]

So you don't like how some disagree.

To use a phrase from an earlier post...... So what.

For another paraphrase. Why the disagreements affect you I am totally bewildered.

You already see when it's over how costly a battle is.

Adding numbers would add nothing to how the game is played. But somewhere down the line the problem will spring up that the numbers are off. About how unhistorical they are. And then someone will want to see it broken dowm to KIA/WIA/MIA/POW. Then you're going to want to know how many of the middle two rejoin the ranks. And let's not forget the air/naval units.

I'd say it's alot easier to do as has been suggested than it is to program in.

About 12,000,000 Russsians served during the war. How many were city garrisions? How many were on the front line? How many were in the Far East? Finland? How many even had weapons? Of the paper strength of the Northwest Front in August 1914, how many were actually able to fight?

A great deal of work for little or no gain in a game of this scale.

But, if enough people want it, sure, why not put it in.

After all the major bug fixes and whatnot are done with.

[wodin]

Guns of August does it and that has an abstracted combat mechanism. I still think it could be worked out otherwise if it couldn't isnt the combat system off?? If no matter what formula you use you didn't get remotely realistic figures wouldn't seem right to me as we are dealing with Corps here which did have a certain amount of men. If I could do it in my head as people suggest then why couldn't the game do it for me?

Still thanks JD for the support. I personally wouldn't be bothered if someone has a certain want in a game that I wasn't bothered about myself if it didn't affect the gameplay in any way.

I love chrome...I put my hands up...in all games...even more so in operational games as they can be quite dry at times. As long as the game has good mechanics and the chrome didn't take anything away from game I'm all for it. Immersion for me is very important in wargames. I'm not a chess person....I'm a fantasy imagination running wild kind of lad.

[JudgeDredd]

Paraphrase all you want. I'm not in the wrong here. Your the one who appears arrogant enough to think that what Wodin wants isn't what he wants. He says it would add immersion. You say it would be little or no gain. He's already TOLD you it would greatly affect his immersion of the game, and STILL you say it's for little or no gain.

So because it doesn't matter to you, you're arrogant enough to assume it's a non requirement and a null point for the OP? His request doesn't affect me in the slightest. I neither want it, nor see how it would affect my gaming experience. However, it does matter to him, so he's got every right to request it.

Enough. I'm not getting into a male pissing contest with you. Wodin...you go ahead and ask for features to be added in any game you want. If they get done, great. If they don't, well maybe one will one day. Regardless...don't be put off asking just because other people are arrogant enough to dismiss your request simply because they don't see it the way you do.

[wodin]

Cheers JD. Its happened three times in one week...so I got abit pissed myself....

[Aurelian]

Well, as so well put here: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=17589
 
"well, this is a boardgame conversion, and the replacement point system is integral to the game, so I am pretty sure it wont happen.

And what is the point? In the AGEOD engine games, you are talking about battles with a few thousand losses per side in case its a big battle. In the Great War, that was the number of a "weak" day, and we have monthly turns."

[NefariousKoel]

I think there's still many useful tweaks I'd prefer done before adding fluff, though.

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: NefariousKoel

I think there's still many useful tweaks I'd prefer done before adding fluff, though.

That is my take on it. I'm not against an accurate casualty count-(there is a loss and replacement flow chart in the ledger)-I think it would be a nice touch for the game. Right now I hope the developer is concentrating on making MP functions-perfect.[;)]