This takes away from strategy, how is that a good thing? Right now, winning a CC game is based partly on luck of the drop, dice, and spoils (if you're playing spoils) and partly on strategy. One big part of strategy is hiding what your real strategy is from other players. If you take that away, the game is based on luck even more than it already is, which is NOT a good thing.
No offense, but the two people that are in support of this suggestion so far are a cook and a private, two people that have certainly not got the strategy part down very well. Get someone who's usually an officer to support your suggestion, then we can talk.
I agree with Dako and JRH here. This is a bad idea. You can always tell what happened everywhere (even in fog of war games) if you know how to read the log and take snapshots. It does take some time (and some intelligence) but that's what separates the great players from the good players. If you want to learn from what people did (which I think is your intent here, and great intentions), what I suggest is finding a mentor to help you. There is the society of cooks as well as a few clans who have social groups where they mentor players and help them learn game play. EMPIRE is one of those clans as are the Spanking Monkis. Arka, you seem like you want to learn and improve, which is an admiral quality in a person. Find someone to help you along and you will see huge improvements.
Don't know if it's just me but it really bugs me that when an enemy conqurs one of my territories in a Fog Of War game, the Log only records it as: "Asshat assaulted ? from ? and conquered it from Halmir
Specifics/Details:
It was my territory at the start of the round then I lost it fair enough. My suggestion though is that the log shows who has conquered which of my lands. I'm not too bothered to know precisely where the attack came from (it could be nice, but not vital). However on an 8 player map I could come back to find I've lost a dozen lands and I won't be certain who has taken which ones, if I can no longer see that region/continent etc
How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
Knowing who has taken which land helps me know where enemies are strongest - and most of all this just makes plain sense! My troops would get off a last radio message telling me that the Green army is attacking them, I'm sure!
Don't know if it's just me but it really bugs me that when an enemy conqurs one of my territories in a Fog Of War game, the Log only records it as: "Asshat assaulted ? from ? and conquered it from Halmir
Specifics/Details:
It was my territory at the start of the round then I lost it fair enough. My suggestion though is that the log shows who has conquered which of my lands. I'm not too bothered to know precisely where the attack came from (it could be nice, but not vital). However on an 8 player map I could come back to find I've lost a dozen lands and I won't be certain who has taken which ones, if I can no longer see that region/continent etc
How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
Knowing who has taken which land helps me know where enemies are strongest - and most of all this just makes plain sense! My troops would get off a last radio message telling me that the Green army is attacking them, I'm sure!
Amen!
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
jefjef wrote:The mystery is part of FOG. You don't want mystery than play sunny games.
Sure, but there's "mystery"...and then there's "silly and illogical". The current implementation is "silly and illogical" because it doesn't make any sense that an army would have no idea at all who attacked them or, even more likely, what direction they were attacked from.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
jefjef wrote:The mystery is part of FOG. You don't want mystery than play sunny games.
Sure, but there's "mystery"...and then there's "silly and illogical". The current implementation is "silly and illogical" because it doesn't make any sense that an army would have no idea at all who attacked them or, even more likely, what direction they were attacked from.
jefjef wrote:The mystery is part of FOG. You don't want mystery than play sunny games.
Sure, but there's "mystery"...and then there's "silly and illogical". The current implementation is "silly and illogical" because it doesn't make any sense that an army would have no idea at all who attacked them or, even more likely, what direction they were attacked from.
The whole art of war consists of guessing at what is on the other side of the hill. - Duke of Wellington
This post was made by jefjef who should be on your ignore list.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
jefjef wrote:The mystery is part of FOG. You don't want mystery than play sunny games.
Sure, but there's "mystery"...and then there's "silly and illogical". The current implementation is "silly and illogical" because it doesn't make any sense that an army would have no idea at all who attacked them or, even more likely, what direction they were attacked from.
The whole art of war consists of guessing at what is on the other side of the hill. - Duke of Wellington
An army (ANY army) that consistently uses this as their plan cannot possibly avoid utter defeat.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
jefjef wrote:The mystery is part of FOG. You don't want mystery than play sunny games.
Sure, but there's "mystery"...and then there's "silly and illogical". The current implementation is "silly and illogical" because it doesn't make any sense that an army would have no idea at all who attacked them or, even more likely, what direction they were attacked from.
The whole art of war consists of guessing at what is on the other side of the hill. - Duke of Wellington
An army (ANY army) that consistently uses this as their plan cannot possibly avoid utter defeat.
No true. Custer guessed wrong once. Stonewall guessed right many times. FOG of war. If ya can't handle it play sunny.
This post was made by jefjef who should be on your ignore list.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
Crazyirishman wrote:If you know FOW then you'll be able to tell where your enemies have attacked you from a lot of the time if you pay close attention to the log.
Perhaps if you have a perfect memory or take snapshots of your games each turn you play. Otherwise...no, it isn't possible to tell from paying close attention to the log.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
jefjef wrote:The mystery is part of FOG. You don't want mystery than play sunny games.
Sure, but there's "mystery"...and then there's "silly and illogical". The current implementation is "silly and illogical" because it doesn't make any sense that an army would have no idea at all who attacked them or, even more likely, what direction they were attacked from.
The whole art of war consists of guessing at what is on the other side of the hill. - Duke of Wellington
An army (ANY army) that consistently uses this as their plan cannot possibly avoid utter defeat.
No true. Custer guessed wrong once. Stonewall guessed right many times. FOG of war. If ya can't handle it play sunny.
Said like a true pretend-strategist.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
This was probably requested before, but why not have:
"Player X attacked Player Y in Siam from Indonesia with 30 armies. X lost 20, defeated Y's 10 armies..."
instead all we get is "Choswolf assaulted Danzig from Herzogtum Preußen and conquered it from Scotchleaf" - at least when it is your own place that was attacked you should know what the # of attackers and Defenders was.
It kinda is a bummer when you have 30 armies somewhere, and Poof, they just disappear, and you dont know if they were defeated by a hoard or just by 10 lucky guys.
Have the game chat record when players lose or gain bonuses.
Specifics/Details:
Say in classic someone took Australia, and the last place in Australia they took was Perth. The game log would read something like this:
"Super Nova conquered Perth and advanced two troops. Super Nova gained continental bonus of two troops from Australia."
When a player loses a bonus, the game chat would read something like this: Cookconquered Jakarta and advanced one troops. Super Nova lost two troop continental bonus from Australia.
How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
Although for a map such as classic this would not really be necessary, on more complicated maps it would save people the trouble of trying to figure out where on earth the bonus that is going to give the opposing player a ton of troops is. I know on my current game on Waterloo I find myself constantly trying to figure out what bonuses the opposing players do or don't have, so that I can deploy accordingly.
Is this original suggestion simply to add a game log? Or is it about increasing the definitions within the game log? I think more definition is better, but can the system track the number of armies? Should this one be merged with the suggs about the game log in fog? Seems like they talk about basically the same thing. I support both: more definition in the game log overall, additional information in the fog log (no more "assaulted ? from ?".)
Queen_Herpes wrote:Is this original suggestion simply to add a game log? Or is it about increasing the definitions within the game log? I think more definition is better, but can the system track the number of armies? Should this one be merged with the suggs about the game log in fog? Seems like they talk about basically the same thing. I support both: more definition in the game log overall, additional information in the fog log (no more "assaulted ? from ?".)
This suggestion is about a complete reworking of the game log system. Everything to do with logging should be re-coded from scratch.
Queen_Herpes wrote:Is this original suggestion simply to add a game log? Or is it about increasing the definitions within the game log? I think more definition is better, but can the system track the number of armies? Should this one be merged with the suggs about the game log in fog? Seems like they talk about basically the same thing. I support both: more definition in the game log overall, additional information in the fog log (no more "assaulted ? from ?".)
This suggestion is about a complete reworking of the game log system. Everything to do with logging should be re-coded from scratch.
Queen_Herpes wrote:Is this original suggestion simply to add a game log? Or is it about increasing the definitions within the game log? I think more definition is better, but can the system track the number of armies? Should this one be merged with the suggs about the game log in fog? Seems like they talk about basically the same thing. I support both: more definition in the game log overall, additional information in the fog log (no more "assaulted ? from ?".)
This suggestion is about a complete reworking of the game log system. Everything to do with logging should be re-coded from scratch.
And be replaced with...
A new system. Everything that you want to see in the new log should be in this thread.
