Questions about the game (before buying, really)

[Epaminondas]

Haha. I had something like a "Dagnabit" moment when I found out the hard way that Germany can invade Canada from Seville on AoD (even though IRL the Atlantic is more then 3,000km!!)

This is one of those times when history rears up and smacks you in the face. Years ago I was equally skeptical about reports I'd read that the Western Task Force invading Casablanca as part of Operation Torch sailed directly from the U.S. So skeptical in fact that I spent weeks trawling through documents trying to find evidence of a misinterpretation of the 'real' events. There wasn't any. Thirty-five thousand men picked up at Hampton Roads and dropped off on a bunch of North African beaches. Amazing.

I guess if the Yanks could do that historically it's conceivable that the Jerries could do something like the reverse in game.

 

[Titan79]

There's been an awful lot of praise for the DH map, but in my view in at least one important respect it's a triumph of form over function. It's certainly more attractive visually, but I'd argue the whole purpose of a map is to show one how to get from A to B - and the DH map doesn't do that. There are many examples of provinces which appear to share borders being inaccessible from one to the other. Each province does have a legend that the player can consult to see where traverse is possible and what kind of terrain must be crossed, but it strikes me that if a map requires you to consult a list to determine whether movement that is illustrated as being possible really is possible then it aint doing its job real well.

I say all this with some bitterness having discovered the fact by spending three months moving from one province to a second only to find that I couldn't move anywhere from that province but back to the one I'd started from. "Dagnabit" and other expletives typically used by Yosamite Sam!

Probably the best possible explanation out there in the whole fora why AoD's map is not to be laughed at when compared to DH's one - good job, Epa.

 

[Epaminondas]

I need to jump in with a quick correction and apology here. In post 16 on this thread I was moved to comment in regard to AoD that,

the diminishing returns associated with force commitment to combat all make for a more accurate and more complete simulation.

I should have remained motionless.

As most AoD players are only too aware, the game has a system of diminishing returns based on the Dupoy model that sees each attacking unit's offensive effectiveness progressively decline once an optimal force size has been exceeded, and I intimated (well, flat out asserted) that DH lacked that feature. It does, but in it's place it has an alternative mechanism ensuring diminishing returns based instead upon force ratios. I've just re-read the developers' notes and have to acknowledge that not only does that mechanism also broadly serve Dupoy's analysis, it does so in a way that avoids the very frought arguments regarding province frontages that dominated early reactions to the AoD system.

I'm very contrite for having misled people on this point.

 

[Count of Reval]

Yeah, they are really good in imposing guilt.

 

[Epaminondas]

Yeah, they are really good in imposing guilt.

Not absolutely clear on who "they" are, Count, but I'm one of those inner-directed throwbacks and the only one who gets to impose guilt on me is me. In this case I figure that if I set myself up to publicly comment on and evaluate the work of others I have an obligation to be accurate. I wasn't, and I wasn't because I was careless in my use of language and inattentive to an important comparison in the way the two systems work. Poor form as that is, it merely makes me embarrassed. But if my carelessness led anyone else not to try one game or the other, or to waste hours and hours playing under a misapprehension for which I was responsible then I really would feel guilty.

Hence the mea culpa.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

This is one of those times when history rears up and smacks you in the face. Years ago I was equally skeptical about reports I'd read that the Western Task Force invading Casablanca as part of Operation Torch sailed directly from the U.S. So skeptical in fact that I spent weeks trawling through documents trying to find evidence of a misinterpretation of the 'real' events. There wasn't any. Thirty-five thousand men picked up at Hampton Roads and dropped off on a bunch of North African beaches. Amazing.

I guess if the Yanks could do that historically it's conceivable that the Jerries could do something like the reverse in game.

Ah, that is amazing! Maybe the AoD naval ranges need editing to avoid confusion. But that would require editing hardcoded things such as the layout of the map, so not sure if it's worth it. :unsure:

 

[Titan79]

Not absolutely clear on who "they" are, Count, but I'm one of those inner-directed throwbacks and the only one who gets to impose guilt on me is me. In this case I figure that if I set myself up to publicly comment on and evaluate the work of others I have an obligation to be accurate. I wasn't, and I wasn't because I was careless in my use of language and inattentive to an important comparison in the way the two systems work. Poor form as that is, it merely makes me embarrassed. But if my carelessness led anyone else not to try one game or the other, or to waste hours and hours playing under a misapprehension for which I was responsible then I really would feel guilty.

Hence the mea culpa.

..yet it is true that, had you done that in the AoD forum (I mean making a "bad" comment), its devs wouldn't have jumped at you like in other cases.

 

[Epaminondas]

..yet it is true that, had you done that in the AoD forum (I mean making a "bad" comment), its devs wouldn't have jumped at you like in other cases.

It's not that it was a 'bad' comment Mr T. - it was an inaccurate one. The DH boards are littered with my criticisms of aspects of the game that I think are poorly conceived or poorly executed and I've never heard a peep of complaint from the devs. Which is just as well since I figure I'm perfectly entitled to give bad press to those flaws since in my view flaws they are. But I'm not entitled to misrepresent a feature of the game as being less than it is. That's what I did here and that's what brought me back to apologise and correct my error.

 

[Titan79]

It's not that it was a 'bad' comment Mr T. - it was an inaccurate one. The DH boards are littered with my criticisms of aspects of the game that I think are poorly conceived or poorly executed and I've never heard a peep of complaint from the devs. Which is just as well since I figure I'm perfectly entitled to give bad press to those flaws since in my view flaws they are. But I'm not entitled to misrepresent a feature of the game as being less than it is. That's what I did here and that's what brought me back to apologise and correct my error.

Sure, sure, but the point still stands. Could you ever imagine - or, do you ever remember - Lennart, Andy or Philipp replying in a rash, impolite or ill-mannered way to any user who made an even harsh critic to the game?

I, frankly, can't.

 

[Epaminondas]

No I can't either, but then nor can I imagine any of the devs from DH doing that. I have no insight into other people's experiences, which seem to form a substantial sub-text here, but I can say categorically that the only contact I've had from any of DH's devs has been fully considered, entirely respectful, and congenially expressed.

You've already referred to my earlier trenchant criticism of the DH map and, as another instance, I've been savagely criticial of DH's naval supply system both on their board and here. But in neither of those cases, nor in any other where my complaints have been supported by the facts, have I copped any flak from the devs. In this case my comment re diminishing returns wasn't well founded and I'd fully expect anyone who had the time available and any pride in his/her work to point that out to me.

 

[bosman]

Sure, sure, but the point still stands. Could you ever imagine - or, do you ever remember - Lennart, Andy or Philipp replying in a rash, impolite or ill-mannered way to any user who made an even harsh critic to the game?

I, frankly, can't.

But AoD team members are no longer involved in further development as much as DH's devs. On the other hand, there was no official announcement about abandoning future patches.
I certainly share your point, but it doesn't surprise me, that people are quite confused about all the situation.

 

[Count of Reval]

Not absolutely clear on who "they" are, Count, but I'm one of those inner-directed throwbacks and the only one who gets to impose guilt on me is me. In this case I figure that if I set myself up to publicly comment on and evaluate the work of others I have an obligation to be accurate. I wasn't, and I wasn't because I was careless in my use of language and inattentive to an important comparison in the way the two systems work. Poor form as that is, it merely makes me embarrassed. But if my carelessness led anyone else not to try one game or the other, or to waste hours and hours playing under a misapprehension for which I was responsible then I really would feel guilty.

Hence the mea culpa.

I just thought you were a little too harsh on yourself - that's all. Your tone made me react. There's nothing wrong with correcting one's mistakes.

 

[Epaminondas]

Thanks for your consideration Count - it does you credit.

 

[Titan79]

Well, then I guess you must have been lucky, Epa. Not everyone has had the same fortune as you did.

 

[Epaminondas]

I'm happy enough to accept your word on this Mr T, and knowing how passionate you are on the issue of respecting the rights and integrity of others I can understand that it would upset you greatly. Maybe it's not so much that I've been lucky, but that the people concerned have learned from the experience and have made an effort to moderate the way they shape their feedback. If that's the case then praise is due both to those who stood up to protest the behaviour and those who listened and heeded them.