What does "vanished" mean?

Talk about everything related to CoCoNet or Colonial Conquest!

Moderator: Kroah

What does "vanished" mean?

Postby Kroah » 21 Mar 2008, 00:41

Monty wrote:What does "vanished" mean? is it the amount of defenders who wanted to retreat but had no bordering country of their colors to flee to?
Kroah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 417
Joined: 07 Feb 2006, 01:01
Location: France

Postby Kroah » 21 Mar 2008, 00:41

You’re alright.

I’ll add that it concerns the retraiting boats too: every men retraiting by boat are killed (read here vanished) if attacking from a different region.

By the way, if you have a better idea to name this…
Kroah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 417
Joined: 07 Feb 2006, 01:01
Location: France

Postby Monty » 26 Mar 2008, 10:44

so for example the "vanished" in the JAPAN major summary numbers the amount of men that JAPAN lost due to vanishing, or the amount of enemy men that were forced into vanishing by JAPAN's army?

i think it must be the second option. if so, the resulting value assembles itself of
(A) the enemy men who retreated but had no bordering country to flee to
(B) the enemy men who attacked JAPAN by boat from a distant region and got lost due to unsuccessful attack

is that right?
what about the enemy men who attack one of JAPAN's country and meanwhile lose their origin country due to a simultaneous attack by JAPAN (or another major) and can't return (C)? they must somehow fall into the same category like (B).
the difference to (A) is that the vanishing of (B) and (C) isn't caused by JAPAN's attack activity in the first place.

is this the reason why "vanished" is listed as extra category? because if it contained only the values of (A) then it could be added to the kills (attack) category, couldn't it?
Monty
CoCoNet Beta Tester
 
Posts: 70
Joined: 24 Jun 2007, 23:03

Postby Monty » 28 Mar 2008, 02:18

Monty wrote:so for example the "vanished" in the JAPAN major summary numbers the amount of men that JAPAN lost due to vanishing, or the amount of enemy men that were forced into vanishing by JAPAN's army?

oh, after checking this exclusivly i see that i was wrong and it's the first option instead of the second. so vanished means my own vanished men.

so in the army-section "vanished" contains
A) "indirect kills" through attack and
B) "indirect kills" through defense of 2 kinds
B1) killed men on defended boats from another region and
B2) defended army-men who lost their origin county while attacking and have no bordering country of their colours to flee to

just to make it clear for myself.
please correct me if i'm wrong.
Monty
CoCoNet Beta Tester
 
Posts: 70
Joined: 24 Jun 2007, 23:03

Postby Kroah » 29 Mar 2008, 20:47

To make it clear:

A major will have trough the game some armies i will call "vanished" (waiting for a better name). I put them in this special category because i don't want them to skew the statistics (mainly ratio statistics).

For example:
Russia attacks England with 5000/5000 (army/navy).
Russia retreats (as we know, very easily) losing 50 navy (for example). The attack comes from another region, so all men are lost! If those "vanished" army (the ones remaining after the battle) were added to the England kills, his ratio will be skewed: England doesn't kills all those men using his defensive factor. I want the ratio to be the reflect of the power factors and comparing them to the army/navy cost.

Actually, vanished army concerns:
1) when defending: the lost retraiting army if no adjacent owned area.
2) when defending: the lost retraiting navy if there's no owned outer area on the whole map.

3) when attacking by army: the lost retraiting army if the origin area has been conquered and there's no adjacent owned area (to the origin area).
4) when attacking by navy: the lost retraiting army and navy if the origin area has been conquered and there's no owned outer area on the whole map.

5) when attacking by navy: the lost retraiting army if attacking from another region.

6) when attacking by navy: the lost army in surplus according to the navy.

Vanished army increases with points 1), 3), 4), 5) and 6).
Vanished navy increases with points 2) and 4).

As you can see, losses (and kills) statistics are only increased during battle (1 every X). I consider everything else as vanished. Kills and losses are exactly men killed and lost by power factors, so ratio are directly dependent on those power factors.
Kroah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 417
Joined: 07 Feb 2006, 01:01
Location: France

Postby Monty » 01 Apr 2008, 08:47

Kroah wrote:I want the ratio to be the reflect of the power factors and comparing them to the army/navy cost.

you have a valid point there.

but there's another thing i'm not 100% happy with:
for every kill you make there's a loss on some major's side counted, which is correct.
but for every vanished man you lose there's no kill positively counted for anyone. i mean, the loss does not happen out of nowhere, it has been forced by someone.
so, although i like the compactness of the actual major summary, a possible enhanced major summary could look like this (extract):

Code: Select all
                                               ARMY               NAVY
current                                        xxx                xxx

direct fatalties
 kills (attack):                               xxx                xxx
 kills (defense):                              xxx                xxx
 kills (total):                                xxx                xxx

 losses (attack):                              xxx                xxx
 losses (defense):                             xxx                xxx
 losses (total):                               xxx                xxx

 ratio (attack):                               xxx                xxx
 ratio (defense):                              xxx                xxx
 ratio (total):                                xxx                xxx
 ratio (total)/100,000$:                       xxx                xxx

indirect fatalties
 kills (attack):                               xxx (*)            xxx (*)
 kills (defense):                              xxx (*)            xxx (*)
 kills (total):                                xxx                xxx

 losses (attack):                              xxx (3,4,5,6)      xxx (4)
 losses (defense):                             xxx (1)            xxx (2)
 losses (total):                               xxx                xxx


(1)...(6) the events from your previous post
(*) not harvested at the moment, respectively only counted for "the other side". e.g. indirect fatalties/kills (attack) are only counted as indirect fatalties/losses(defense) for the enemy.
Monty
CoCoNet Beta Tester
 
Posts: 70
Joined: 24 Jun 2007, 23:03

Postby Monty » 01 Apr 2008, 09:01

Monty wrote:but for every vanished man you lose there's no kill positively counted for anyone. i mean, the loss does not happen out of nowhere, it has been forced by someone.

although i do see that an indirect kill (defense) resulting out of (4) for example is a veeeery indirect kill (rather it results from the attacker's stupidity)....
to eliminate those numbers if unwanted, you could of course split losses (attack) and kills (defense) further into 3,4,5 and 6, but that would be hardcore, wouldn't it?...:wink:
Monty
CoCoNet Beta Tester
 
Posts: 70
Joined: 24 Jun 2007, 23:03

Re: What does "vanished" mean?

Postby dizt3mp3r » 08 Apr 2012, 05:25

If the same happens in an island you can suffer inordinate losses due to the retreating rule. For example if you have 15,000,000 Russians in Scotland in a fortified area and it is attacked by 6,000,000 British soldiers, then this results in the loss of all 15,000,000 Russians, not in the battle but they vanish in the retreat. They cannot retreat so they are lost. This does not seem logical. If they cannot retreat then they would stay and fight.
dizt3mp3r
 
Posts: 78
Joined: 15 Nov 2011, 12:02

Re: What does "vanished" mean?

Postby CivLord » 08 Apr 2012, 10:58

dizt3mp3r wrote:If the same happens in an island you can suffer inordinate losses due to the retreating rule. For example if you have 15,000,000 Russians in Scotland in a fortified area and it is attacked by 6,000,000 British soldiers, then this results in the loss of all 15,000,000 Russians, not in the battle but they vanish in the retreat. They cannot retreat so they are lost. This does not seem logical. If they cannot retreat then they would stay and fight.


Lost doesn't have to mean 'vanished' as in 'gone up in smoke'. On a real live battlefield it would mean deserted and vanished into the countryside or surrendered and vanished into prisoner of war camps. In both cases, the troops are not vanished from the face of the Earth, but for all practical reasons are lost for your war efforts. You cannot order them around anymore, so they are vanished from your troops roster.

In real live situations, troops tend to desert or surrender more quickly when their position is more isolated and when they are staying for a while.
That woukd be a nice tweak: A defence bonus during the first year after conquering a country, when the troops are still gung-ho from their victory. Then after a few years a reduction in defence for isolated countries (islands or countries that do not border on other countries occupied by the same player). For extra reality you can reverse this again to an extra defence bonus after 20 years, because the defending troops are no longer just defending an occupied territory, but they are defending their homes, where they have built families.
CivLord
 
Posts: 16
Joined: 26 Dec 2011, 15:12

Re: What does "vanished" mean?

Postby dizt3mp3r » 08 Apr 2012, 15:15

That would be a good mod. The issue is that even is that the definition of losing a battle in Coconet means losing a territory. If you lose a territory then your men are lost. In this situation losing a battle should mean merely losing a chunk of your men. The battle should continue until the men are lost. Seriously though, the Russians lost very few men in the battle, a mere hundred thousand or so. So does that mean that very few men were committed to the battle? I'm not sure what it means.
15,000,000 men then lost to the sea is wrong. The battle should have been bigger, far more men lost to the fighting, in this case it should really mean that battle simply continues, the Russians take heavy casualties from each attack and this occurs until they are driven into the sea. Some perhaps vanish each attack but not the whole lot. At the moment they simply turn and walk into the sea of their own accord.
dizt3mp3r
 
Posts: 78
Joined: 15 Nov 2011, 12:02

Re: What does "vanished" mean?

Postby Kroah » 10 Apr 2012, 10:31

I think Colonial Conquest should not be seen as a simulation.Some rules may not have a real meaning in the real world.
The "vanished" behavior (deserted may be a better word to describe it) exists to balance the game without adding more complexity to the gameplay. Some nations have powerful but expensive army, others have affordable but fearful army.
As long as the game stays fun and enjoyable, this is a good alternative.
Some games take the simulation path (Hearts of Iron, etc.) and provide another style of gameplay.
This is my 2 cents.
Kroah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 417
Joined: 07 Feb 2006, 01:01
Location: France

Re: What does "vanished" mean?

Postby dizt3mp3r » 10 Apr 2012, 13:23

You are quite right. I just lost 15,000,00 men to the British and I was quite peeved! Still, I think an option to change the behaviour here would be nice.
dizt3mp3r
 
Posts: 78
Joined: 15 Nov 2011, 12:02

Re: What does "vanished" mean?

Postby Symoon » 27 May 2012, 12:09

Maybe "Missing In Action" (portés disparus) would be easier to understand?
Symoon
CoCoNet Beta Tester
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 20 Jan 2008, 14:41

Re: What does "vanished" mean?

Postby Kroah » 28 May 2012, 18:37

Symoon wrote:Maybe "Missing In Action" (portés disparus) would be easier to understand?

Nice one!
I will try to fit it in the allowed space.
Kroah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 417
Joined: 07 Feb 2006, 01:01
Location: France

Re: What does "vanished" mean?

Postby Symoon » 28 May 2012, 19:41

Kroah wrote:
Symoon wrote:Maybe "Missing In Action" (portés disparus) would be easier to understand?

Nice one!
I will try to fit it in the allowed space.

I think "MIA" will be understood by English players, maybe not from people whose motherlanguage is not English, tough.
Symoon
CoCoNet Beta Tester
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 20 Jan 2008, 14:41

Next

Return to CoCoNet Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron