Battle reports: ??

[Aqualung71]

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

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]

Re: Battle reports: ??

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]

Re: Re: Battle reports: ??

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?

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]

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

[bongo]

Hey Paddy, be nice to that poor old chap