The military kind. Down our way we have the Defence Intelligence Organisation...often described by the inmates* as THE perfect three-way oxymoron.:conf:
The recent debate on LOS, the style of which is best forgotten, was essentially about intelligence. Generally, visual reports are a valuable source of battlefield intelligence, although never to be taken as gospel.
Reports of enemy losses, from whatever source, are also essential to the Command in developing the picture at all levels. These reports will invariably paint a confusing, often contradictory, and frequently exaggerated picture.
But not in CS. We have continually available a current statement of EXACT enemy losses. (At each combat event, we receive a report of the exact outcome.
It seems to me that this is very unrealistic, and thus makes for poor simulation. Perhaps some errors could be built into the system.....as occurs with unspotted Arty. It need not be compulsory, but maybe tied in with Extreme FOW.
*Of whom I was one, in a prevous life.
K K Rossokolski Wrote:Perhaps some errors could be built into the system.....as occurs with unspotted Arty. It need not be compulsory, but maybe tied in with Extreme FOW.
An interesting idea indeed.
Jason Petho
Same thing with disrupted units. Just how would one know the enemy was disrupted? I always picture a bunch of guys with confused looks on their faces. Still, taking that knowledge away would really mess up the game.
Scud Wrote:Same thing with disrupted units. Just how would one know the enemy was disrupted? I always picture a bunch of guys with confused looks on their faces. Still, taking that knowledge away would really mess up the game.
I thought of that, and the same occurred to me. In any event, any change to disruption, either in occurrence or appearance, would demand a complete reconsideration of the assault rules. Can we keep away from disruption here? I think it is sufficiently separate to be left out of this particular discussion.
Scud Wrote:I always picture a bunch of guys with confused looks on their faces.
Are you by any chance describing posters to the Blitz CS Message Board? ;)
Keep in mind that it is a game with the won and loss being determined by a score. You need to know how many points you have in order to adjust your tactics.
I would not like to see extreme, extreme fog of war.
I like the current extreme fog of war.
Of course if it is to be then make it optional.
Thanx!
Hawk
K K Rossokolski Wrote:But not in CS. We have continually available a current statement of EXACT enemy losses. (At each combat event, we receive a report of the exact outcome.
Well, in night scenarios in report is only unknown results information, even when it concern your units.
Hawk Kriegsman Wrote:Keep in mind that it is a game with the won and loss being determined by a score. You need to know how many points you have in order to adjust your tactics.
I would not like to see extreme, extreme fog of war.
I like the current extreme fog of war.
Of course if it is to be then make it optional.
Thanx!
Hawk
Exactly so, Erik...it is a GAME...a game simulating actual combat in (mostly) a real historical setting. And in the real thing, you need to know the enemy situation on an ongoing basis. BUT you
never do know this accurately, so therefore why should you in the game? I am not suggesting the information be denied, but that an element of uncertainty be introduced.
K K Rossokolski Wrote:Exactly so, Erik...it is a GAME...a game simulating actual combat in (mostly) a real historical setting. And in the real thing, you need to know the enemy situation on an ongoing basis. BUT you never do know this accurately, so therefore why should you in the game? I am not suggesting the information be denied, but that an element of uncertainty be introduced.
Well then just remove the wining and losing from the game too.
You don't always know who won and who lost the battle. So no need for results.
Actually just have a lose result............
Because in war nobody really wins.
Thanx!
Hawk