Battle reports: ??

[snoopy369]

I don't remember us ever discussing Battle Reports, in the pre-game. I don't think we have needed them yet, but I don't doubt that in the next 10-20 turns *someone* will attack *someone else*.

I know Battle Reports can be a huge issue for some people ... but I think for a major game (like a demo game ... ;) ) they are pretty much mandatory.

Opinions? Opinions on type? (And did we already discuss this? I don't think so, but something's sticking in the back of my head ... :confused: )

I suggest mandatory battle reports that are sent to the victim, until all six teams meet (assuming all six survive to meet), at which point a thread is started and all reports posted there. Reports should be details of:
1) all attacks; unit types, starting HPs, ending HPs
2) all ZOC hits or misses (unit types, ending HPs)
3) all Artillery hits or misses (unit types, ending HPs)
4) All city captures, with or without military combat

(ducks)

[Rhothaerill]

Yes, we should have battle reports. They aren't as necessary for regular PBEMs, but they are very helpful in demo games so you can actually figure out what happened, as well as begin planning your own moves based on that battle so you don't have to take so much time when the save actually comes around to you.

[ormuzd]

Oh, god
I expected The Horde to be the first involved in a war. Or maybe there are tensions between them and Euphorica?

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by snoopy369
1) all attacks; unit types, starting HPs, ending HPs
2) all ZOC hits or misses (unit types, ending HPs)
3) all Artillery hits or misses (unit types, ending HPs)
4) All city captures, with or without military combat

(ducks)

Yes, definitely
Not necessary and hard to track
In general terms yes ("my 10 Cats took a few HP's off, but some missed"....or "my 10 Cats were damn useless and took off a total of 1 HP because you're in the mountains you coward")
Yes, definitely

[Kloreep]

1. Yes
2. Not a whole lot of info to be gained, but in the interests of completeness it would probably be good
3. :b: And might as well be specific. I'd hope teams will be keeping close track
of their moves, especially combat, themselves anyway.
4. Yep

[snoopy369]

By ZOC i mean cavalry shooting at your soldiers as they pass by without engaging ... i don't see how that is any harder than any other sort of attack to track. ;) And they manage ok in PTWDG1 ...

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by ormuzd
Oh, god
I expected The Horde to be the first involved in a war. Or maybe there are tensions between them and Euphorica?

I am not suggesting that I am involved in a war in any way as a part of a team or otherwise. I am simply thinking ahead. ;)

TBH it came from PTWDG1 reading, actually. There was a bit of a battle there a while back I hear... :lol:

[Paddy]

The Horde agrees with comprehensive battle reports... :evil:

[Krill]

There was a bit of a battle there a while back I hear...


The Battle for Fort Stanwix (Lego)
Operation Watergroged, and the Flank at Stanwix (GS)
The Breakout at Stanwix (GoW)
The Battle of Abiline (GS)

I was around during the breakout, and I promise you that those battle reports don't show even one tenth of the effort put into that one turn.


1) all attacks; unit types, starting HPs, ending HPs :b:
2) all ZOC hits or misses (unit types, ending HPs) :q: (I'm to lazy damn you :doitnow!: )
3) all Artillery hits or misses (unit types, ending HPs) :b:
4) All city captures, with or without military combat :b:

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Krill
There was a bit of a battle there a while back I hear...


The Battles for Fort Stanwix (Lego)
Operation Watergroged, an the Flank at Stanwix (GS)
The Breakout at Stanwix (GoW)
The Battle of Abiline (GS)

I was around during the breakout, and I promise you that those battle reports don't show even one tenth of the effort put into that one turn.


1) all attacks; unit types, starting HPs, ending HPs :b:
2) all ZOC hits or misses (unit types, ending HPs) :q: (I'm to lazy damn you :doitnow!:)
3) all Artillery hits or misses (unit types, ending HPs) :b:
4) All city captures, with or without military combat :b:

lol

Why are ZOC hits/misses difficult?? If people don't want them then I'm fine with that, but I don't see them as being any more difficult, or any less meaningful, than any other element that I posted above. They're a loss of hitpoints by a unit, just like an attack; and they don't really come up that much except during certain later eras in the game (and a well planned attack will avoid them to a large extent anyway). I mean, they're basically just artillery barrages, just not the head-on type, but from the side ...

[Krill]

I don't mind doing the hits, but the misses? I don't know all of the circustances under which they happen, so I would not know where them to put them in the report...

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Krill
I don't mind doing the hits, but the misses? I don't know all of the circustances under which they happen, so I would not know where them to put them in the report...

You see it miss, do you not? Guess it's been a little while since i've played a game where they happen, but i thought it's just like artillery - you see a pause, the unit shoots at you, your HP don't go down, and you move on ...

But, hits are better than nothing, too. ;)

[Krill]

I can't remember seeing any misses...

[Aqualung71]

Sorry....we haven't reported any of our battles to date.

[snoopy369]

Please report them to the offended parties then :)

[Aqualung71]

I have been directed here by Sir Paddy, who told me to stop causing debate in the Battle Report thread :D

I must say I misunderstood snoopy's original proposal. I agree with battle reports, but they should only be communicated with the opposing party. This is in convention with ever one of my other PBEM games, and I see no reason why there should be a special thread reporting battles for all and sundry to witness and from which to glean important military intellignece.

As as I have already stated in the other thread, DR is unlikely to be reporting any battles in the thread. Of course, DR is unlikely to be involved in any battles, so it probably doesn't matter ;)

[Beta]

Aqua makes a good point. I agree that battle reports should be strictly be between the two parties involved.

[snoopy369]

I don't see what the difference is, particularly, except making people forward emails a bit more ... at this point in the game, any battle between two civs is pretty much guaranteed to propogate to all 6 civs ...but I don't see why it matters (for the aforementioned reason).

Why do the PTWDG1 folks not mind the thread I wonder? I think it's more interesting that way, as everyone can see the battles, but if that's not what interests y'all i guess it doesn't matter...

But, I vote for mandatory thread reporting, if others agree with me. :)

However, you should read the things you agree too. :)

[ormuzd]

having contact with everyone else mens your actions will be known to the other teams if they want. The least thing a defending team could is reaveal this kind of information

[Krill]

Personally, let the decision to post the battle reports remain with the attacking party. IF the attacking party does not post the battle report, let the defending party post it if they wish.

But the battle reports MUST be sent to afflicted parties.

[Beta]

Originally posted by Krill
Personally, let the decision to post the battle reports remain with the attacking party. IF the attacking party does not post the battle report, let the defending party post it if they wish.

But the battle reports MUST be sent to afflicted parties.

I like this proposal.

[Kloreep]

I agree; no one should be forced to post battle reports. If neither party cares to make it public, so be it.

[bongo]

Public battle report *do* make the game more interesting for the bystanders, or the non-members.

[Krill]

Yes, they do.

However, if a bystander is interested in whatever happens to our team, they are welcome to join us. They would be with us for a long time to come...

[joncnunn]

I have never seen a ZOC miss being shown in SP game. The unit just goes along it's way as if it wasn't next to a ZOC unit in that case.

We defenately want all attacks, unit types, starting HPs, ending Hps, ZOC hits, artillery hits / misses, and city captures with and without military combat in the order that they occured.

Originally posted by snoopy369
1) all attacks; unit types, starting HPs, ending HPs
2) all ZOC hits or misses (unit types, ending HPs)
3) all Artillery hits or misses (unit types, ending HPs)
4) All city captures, with or without military combat

(ducks)

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by joncnunn
We defenately want all attacks, unit types, starting HPs, ending Hps, ZOC hits, artillery hits / misses, and city captures with and without military combat in the order that they occured.



And you still want the turns played within 24 hours? :lol:

Do you want the names of all the troops involved in the battle too? That might be useful for future reference ;)

[Kloreep]

You mean you don't have that information already for your own team?

Battle reports don't kill play times, wars kill play times ;)

[ormuzd]

Just an opinion:
reports are the reason I'm delaying playing DG saves sometimes

With detailed reports playing can take 3 hours, without reports - no more than 30 minutes

[Paddy]

:lol: and at the moment you have 50 units...?

[bongo]

Hey Paddy, be nice to that poor old chap :)

[Krill]

Paddy, in a couple of dozen turns, that won't be a bad estimate...

;) of course, they be mostly be BOH slaves...and our two liberated slaves...

[joncnunn]

It takes no more time to write a battle note that it does the computer to anamiate the battle.

Example of a battle report taken from Napeolonic Conquest:

Attacking Wick
Grand Battery fires at 4/4 RedCoat. Miss
Grand Battery fires at 4/4 RedCoat. Now 2/4
Grand Battery fires at 3/3 RedCoat. Now 1/3
5/5 Imperial Calvary attacking 2/4 RedCoat. Imperaial Calvary retreats at 1/5. Red Coat 1/4.
4/4 Imperial Calvary attacking 1/3 RedCoat. Dead RedCoat. Imperial Calvary 3/4.
4/4 Imperial Calvary attacking 1/4 RedCoat. Dead Redcoat. IC promoted. 2/5.
Wick captured.

[ormuzd]

having report for one unit and for 100 units needs different amount of time

and having the computer animate the move and the same time to write the report means double time, isn't it?

as I said - it was just a note, not pointing this game or anything related to this game - just a principal position

[Kloreep]

I guess I can see how battle reports would be a signifigant slowdown for "teams" that, like in 1889's case, now are just one player for the civ. Otherwise, however, I'm frankly surprised you guys weren't already planning to write this stuff down for posting in your own forum. And it doesn't take that long to edit out the moves unrelated to the battle report, does it?

[Modo44]

It gets significantly faster if you drop the HP numbers for each unit. Just getting the total attacked+killed+lost unit count is usually information enough (and easy to count!).

[ormuzd]

modo with Terry Pratchet quote as signature? Do you want to join the team of Ankh-Morpork?

[joncnunn]

I thought Modo was already in a team.

[ormuzd]

no, he is not
but maybe he is not interested. If he was I'm almost sure he could be a team leader :)

[McMeadows]

I would like to remind all nations to keep the unit type in the unit's name. At the moment a certain team is having Simon and Foxtrot camping out and we're curious who's who.

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by McMeadows
I would like to remind all nations to keep the unit type in the unit's name. At the moment a certain team is having Simon and Foxtrot camping out and we're curious who's who.

I believe you are referring to units in the Desolation Row army.

I am surprised at your concern however. It is clear from the unit stats what the units actually are. At least we haven't renamed a Swordsman "Warrior", or worse....renamed a Settler "Worker" - I've seen that done before :nono:

I'm probably mistaken, but I don't recall ever seeing the word "Archer" in front of Kurt Cobain's name....unless you've recently changed it. :hmmm:

[ChrisiusMaximus]

As far as im concerned its bad practice to leave out the units designation from the name, and no excuses can be accepted !!!

WE ALSO HAVE ONE OF YOUR UNITS IN VIEW WHICH WE CAN SEE IS A WARRIOR BUT IT SAYS NOTHING OF THAT IN ITS NAME.

Change it please, and any others you have that do not have the correct unit designation in their names.

[Paddy]

Originally posted by ormuzd
modo with Terry Pratchet quote as signature? Do you want to join the team of Ankh-Morpork?

haha, could be a bit late for your team getting more players... as they could be refugees soon enough :D

on that, have you and Krill started discussions yet with other teams on where you will go when your civ has been taken down :evil:

[Krill]

CM: Only if you allow an observer into your private forum.

[Paddy]

Originally posted by Krill
CM: Only if you allow an observer into your private forum.

and what does that have to do with anything here Lord Krill?

and with 15 members, we have plenty of observers....

[Krill]

If you remember, BOH was the team that effectively vetoed the idea of observers. If one team can veto that, then any team has the right to veto any idea it does not like...

[Paddy]

you are funny chap indeed

now you want to veto an idea that you agreed to :lol:

well thanks for ungrading our Soothsayer's Savages (horseman 5/5) to Elite... all very kind of you to send your Postal Service (war chariot 3/3) to hurt us so... ;)

Hope you have lots more of them war chariots heading our way :evil:
Bloody good training for when we need to go to war :evilgrin:

[Krill]

Paddy, I am only pointing out that some people here demand that everything happen as they want.

the reason that I disagree with having to edit in the names, (I take it that you thought that was "vetoing (sp?)" the battle reports? And I was not around when Devastator was killed, so you should talk to Ormuzd about that...or maybe you have already?), is that the stats are easily readable when you click on the stack. The exceptions are, I believe, some troop transports, and workers/settlers/ and exploers/scouts. These should, ofcourse, be named in such a way that it is easily understandable what is what, with the addendum of a legend etc.

[Paddy]

my error

wrong thread

moved to the Naming thread (http://67.15.24.46/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=3775238&t=4644#post3775238)

[ormuzd]

the damn RNG... I will keep my comments about it for some more days (until we are completely destroyed or concede) but it gets more and more awful

[Paddy]

ahh but what of your battle reports...

will we ever know who took out Devastator the Bold?

[ormuzd]

I'll edit the battle report and I'll post the new ones after this turn which I'll play it after 12 hours

[Paddy]

ok, thanks

and 12 hours before ya can play is it? ahh well so much for the hope of seeing the save before the sun came up :lol:

well back down to the basement bars for me then :evil:

[ormuzd]

the battle report about Devastator's (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=3775304&t=5226#post3775304) death was updated

[Paddy]

Thank you :D

[ormuzd]

glad to help you as always ;)

[Paddy]

Originally posted by McMeadows
quote:
Originally sent by e-mail by Aqualung71
Battle Report:
4/4 Horse kills 4/4 Spear, 1/4
4/4 Horse kills 4/4 Archer, 2/4
4/4 Horse kills 4/5 Archer, 2/4
3/3 Horse retreats against 3/3 Archer, 2/3
3/3 Horse kills 2/3 Archer, 3/4
Thank you for the opportunity, and the War Happiness. Now run along boys



Originally posted by Aqualung71

I do not believe it is necessary under the agreed rules to post battle reports in a public forum, nor do I believe it is appropriate.

I therefore protest at McMeadows posting the details of the battle that took place last turn. :rant:

bahh hummm bugg

you actually agreed to them, ya know ya did...

now when all can enjoy a bit of entertainment, at your victory, ya want to Hide

maybe ya team needs a new desolator http://www.civforum.de/images/smilies/pffft.gif

or a good public realations team :evil: :lol: :evil:

[Aqualung71]

Ah, trust the old Barbarian to weigh in with criticism ;)

[Krill]

Aqua, why should Euphorica not be allowed to release details about the game like this?

[Aqualung71]

Well firstly, battle reports are between the two civs concerned. They are not a matter that teams on the other side of the world have an automatic right to know about. Furthermore, the fact that two teams are at war is not something that should be advertised. The game mechanics allow you to see which teams are at war through the diplomatic screen, but only if you have an Embassy with at least one of the warring parties.

Therefore, public broadcast of which teams are at war goes directly against the mechanics available for deriving such information via the game engine. It goes without saying therefore, that battle results should also not be broadcast.

[ormuzd]

keeping close to the allowed ingame rules will not allow us tech agreements for example. I'm sure there ar numerous other treaties and deeds which can be done and they are not presented in the game as options.

And about the war - you can't believe that it will stay hidden for too long. At least one team will contact other team to ask them soemthing - to help with troops or to not attack, or to not support the enemy, etc. It can't stay hidden for too long either.

[Aqualung71]

Probably better to move the discussion here.

Originally posted by McMeadows
Euphorica has contact with all nations and is therefore allowed to post whatever it wishes. That indeed includes showing the good fortune Lady RNG has given DR and reveiling DR has at least 5 horsemen. From the battlereport we take it that 1 promotion has been granted to the last horseman (now 4 vet horseman and 1 regular).

I guess the principle I'm raising here is how much information is too much? How much should the gathering of strategic intelligence be so easily gained from others instead of having to find it out yourself through your own ingenuity?

To give just one example.....if I planted a Spy and was able to see the entire army of another civ through the military advisor's screen, would it be reasonable to give that information to all other players?

[Krill]

To give just one example.....if I planted a Spy and was able to see the entire army of another civ through the military advisor's screen, would it be reasonable to give that information to all other players?

Personally, I believe that it would be fair to share this infomation.

Aqua, is it that you have no allies with whom to share this infomation? :cute:

[McMeadows]

Originally posted by Aqualung71
I guess the principle I'm raising here is how much information is too much? How much should the gathering of strategic intelligence be so easily gained from others instead of having to find it out yourself through your own ingenuity?

irrelevant
Either we send e-mails to all teams or simply broadcast it on the forum, if we wish to share the battle reports with everyone, we do so.

[ormuzd]

I think McMeadows is right - noone can do anything to prevent this. And we have already agreed to send battle reports.

But think about this - the people will know only the force with which you attack. Separating the units in two groups or renaming them each turn will confuse everyone else.

[McMeadows]

A horseman can't attack twice in 1 turn. 5 Attacks by horsemen have been performed on our units = 5 horsemen (at least).

[OPD]

Yeah if you have contact with a team you can say anything you like to them or post anything for them to see.

Except maps of course

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by McMeadows
A horseman can't attack twice in 1 turn. 5 Attacks by horsemen have been performed on our units = 5 horsemen (at least).

You seem pretty intent on informing all other teams of our attack strength.

Are you that pissed that your premature attack failed? :hmmm:

[McMeadows]

I was wondering if Ormuzd understood how I came to 5. Just clarifying. The actual battle has been quoted often enough.

[Kloreep]

I'd just like to note I personally agree with the legality of this. It is Information that can be shared as much (or as little) as the two knowing parties, the attacker and the defender, wish. In Aqua's example, yes, it would be quite okay to post the military numbers your spy gave you if you wanted; it's your information and you can do with it as you like.

[ormuzd]

thanks, McM, I could have never realized that

but I wonder - if DR has only five horsemen? what should mean if they attack with 4 horsemen 3 turns later while they have different names - did they loose a horseman to the barbs, did they rename those units or they have simply 9 horsemen.

[bongo]

All 3 alternatives are valid. :)

[ormuzd]

exactly ;)

[McMeadows]

Therefore I added (at least).
But I see you have your maths worked out pretty well... Aqua hasn't shared with us the names of his assassins, so the number is all we can use.

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by ormuzd
thanks, McM, I could have never realized that

but I wonder - if DR has only five horsemen? what should mean if they attack with 4 horsemen 3 turns later while they have different names - did they loose a horseman to the barbs, did they rename those units or they have simply 9 horsemen.

In my new-found spirit of information sharing, enlightened as I now am by all your wonderful gossip, I'd like you to know that we actually have 23 Horsemen, and we swap their names around every 3 turns.

And they're coming soon to a place near you! :lol:

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by McMeadows
Aqua hasn't shared with us the names of his assassins

Incidentally, that's rather strong terminology for our Horsemen, considering it was you who attacked us. I would think "Defenders of Justice" would be a more appropriate term :lol:

[Paddy]

:evil: :lol: :evil:

[Aqualung71]

Are you flaming me Paddy? :lol:

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Aqualung71


In my new-found spirit of information sharing, enlightened as I now am by all your wonderful gossip, I'd like you to know that we actually have 23 Horsemen, and we swap their names around every 3 turns.

And they're coming soon to a place near you! :lol:


Excellent. Now the rest of the world can see how dangerous your crazed horse packs are - and will join us in a massive preemptive strike to rid the world of your threat!!! :D

[Paddy]

Originally posted by Aqualung71
1950BC: There was a minor skirmish between the Euphoricans and the Desolators. Rather, the Desolators destroyed a Euphorican asset that was strangely left unattended.

We fully expect swift reprisals :(



(Note: This was posted publicly in order to relieve the Euphoricans of their self-imposed duty to do so themselves)

ahh the might and generousity of the Grand Desolator himself :lol: as if :evil:

[Krill]

My guess is either a settler, newly built town or worker/s.

Got a GA yet Aqua?

[Aqualung71]

Glad you recognise the benevolence of the Desolation Row, Great Khan ;)

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by Krill
My guess is either a settler, newly built town or worker/s.

Got a GA yet Aqua?

None are completely correct, but one is kinda half right ;)

GA?.....what's that?

[Krill]

slave/s...

[Paddy]

Originally posted by Aqualung71
Glad you recognise the benevolence of the Desolation Row, Great Khan ;)

:lol: benevolence you say :evil:

[McMeadows]

DR has destroyed a EU-colony. We will avenge and celebrate this event soon enough.

[ormuzd]

celebrate your colony destruction
strange people are here around