I am therefore very much bound by ethical considerations to not disclose information which the devs did not want to disclose. The following comments regarding kamikaze air operations are provided very much with that constraint in mind. I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.
I have never understood the need for such subterfuge regarding the game mechanics. Those asking for details regarding game mechanics aren't looking to pilfer the source code, we just want to understand the rules the game operates under. It's compounded by the fact that AE doesn't exactly give great feedback regarding the outcomes it generates in the combat reports. It's the devs ball, and they can share it if they want; this is fine with me.
I think that AE is the only game of this genre where so much of the mechanics are simply a grey area known to the devs and their coterie. I don't want to read the source code, I'd just like to have an informed understanding of, say, what causes LCU artillery devices to fire at ships in a bombardment or amphib TF.
Commenting on #5 only...a laughable statement.
Sub commanders NEVER give in their reports the speed and direction of the ships they engage or even see, yet that was standard operating procedure for US sub commanders to report to Pearl.
Standard Operating Procedure.
Then at midnight of each night US subs gave Fox reports on their daily movements and encounters.
Sorry, no sale on #5.
The word abstraction is obviously not found in your dictionary.
1. In AE the Allied player is Nimitz (or his equivalent in each theatre). Everything is then abstracted down from there. It is standard operating procedure for a strategic/operational wargame. You are not the sub commander. Nor the officer the sub commander reports to who is the person, not Nimitz, who gets to read those reports and act upon them.
2. The game engine has its own abstracted intel module. Such information you claim is not provided is in fact provided in abstract form as part of the MDL. It is what allows a sub to "react" in "real time" following an enemy TF.
3. You, as the player (ie Nimitz), can't act on that information anyway so what is the point of you (ie Nimitz) having it. The on the spot sub commander has it and in game terms that information is only relevant to the on the spot sub commander. What you want is more chrome with absolutely zero game utility but exponentially increasing demands on computer hardware and human frustration.
4. So many things abstracted into the game which IRL would generate a report usually only read and acted upon by someone below Nimitz. To name only a few. Shortage of "supply" (a huge abstraction in its own right as it includes such myriad things like water, food, ammo, building materials etc) at base X, please send supply. Aye Cap'n, shes running low on fuel, better request a fuel transfer from the TF flagship else the TF will be dead in the water. You don't get that report either but miraculously the abstraction allows for underway fuel transfer. Here's another one, you don't get a report breaking down the cause of device disablement. How many men are disabled due to (a) malaria, (b) STD, (c) combat injuries, (d) work accidents etc. Nor are you told their estimated convalescence period.
5. So many other exemplars could be provided and none of them relevant in this particular game engine with its built in abstractions. What you do get is more relevant and accurate information which can be acted upon by Nimitz. Combat Reports provide accurate details on enemy LCU losses. Back in the real world unless you are able to capture the ground held by the enemy, you can't determine with any degree of accuracy how many enemy troops were killed in that last attack (and not all enemy killed are found on the captured battleground). Yet in AE the majority of land attacks result in no advance but the CR still lists how many enemy troops were killed, how many artillery guns (often way back behind the front line anyway) were destroyed, and so on. IRL it is never possible to accurate determine enemy non fatal casualties even if the enemy ground is ceased. You can count the number of POWs captured but you can't count how many injured withdrew with the rest of the enemy able bodied. The CR identifies specific enemy air units providing CAP, IRL that information is subject to a much greater degree of uncertainty. Naval CR and combat animation identifies specific enemy ships. Not so easy IRL, particularly enemy subs launching torpedoes whilst submerged.
Sorry, no sale. To say Nimitz wouldn't get information on the Japanese Combined Fleet's Location/Speed and Direction due to "abstraction" yet Nimitz would get tons of information how many torpedoes the USS Tang launched at the PB Osaka is so contradictory it defies the most vivid imagination.
Intel Officer: "Sir, we found KB!!!"
Nimitz: "How many torpedoes Mush launch at that AKL?"
Intel Officer: "Don't you want to know where KB is and where they are going?"
Nimitz: "No, I want to know about that AKL and how many fish hit her"
Yes, you're asking us to believe a conversation like that happened or would have.
That is laughable.
The problem is you hide behind "Abstraction" a lot. Too much actually.
But keep spinning, you're the best at it.
Just don't play. Seems WitP-AE is not a game for you.
It is Strategic/Operational wargame with some tactical aspects you can change. Apparently not your cup of tea.
Your understanding of WitP-AE as wargame seems to be sorely lacking, so I'd kindly ask you to stop deriding people who actually understand it decently well or better (e.g. Alfred).
If you don't understand difference between Combat report and Operational intelligence...then I am sorry to inform you that you are beyond redemption.
< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 9/23/2018 10:46:29 AM >
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-