Moderator: Community Team
Halmir wrote:Concise description:
- 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!
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.
Woodruff wrote: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.
Woodruff wrote: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.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
jefjef wrote:Woodruff wrote: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
Woodruff wrote:jefjef wrote:Woodruff wrote: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.
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.
jefjef wrote:Woodruff wrote:jefjef wrote:Woodruff wrote: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.
25% wrote:Said like a true pretend-strategist.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
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 ?".)
blakebowling wrote: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:blakebowling wrote: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...
Users browsing this forum: yclee0206