Then don't label it "tank battle" if the entire point is actually the statistics screen. I don't mean to argue with you but that still doesn't make much sense as both the attack and defense tutorials have statistics screens and the tank battle tutorial itself doesn't have that much UI left to show anyhow, it really could have been rolled into the other two.
So what will it change?
Yes, both attack and defence have a statistics, you are right.
But once again I will draw attention to how the training missions are built in the game:
1) Describe 1-2 points
2) The fastest possible transition to this points
Obviously, Defense and Attack are completely inadequate to show statistics. Both conditions are not respected.
The game doesn't show, though.
But why? Is it impossible to apply in the game?
Apparently you are not talking about "showing", but about "forcing."
Yes, the game does not force to do any specific actions, but accurately shows, I guarantee it to you
.
No examples are given and the player is left to fumble around until they "get" the actual ebb and flow of the game or read/watch fan tutorials.
Of course, the game is not a direct textbook on tactics. Since its structure does not involve repeated actions under the same conditions. Those. It is initially assumed that the player is familiar with the basic tactics, at least on an elementary level.
The game gives a simulation, assuming that the player knows what is doing. To learn the basics of tactics, it is not suitable, for this, it should be done approximately as it was done in CM - a script as baseline, minimum variability and simulation.
That will allow to show typical situations with their detailed descriptions and specific instructions for player.
instead of automatically sending the tanks to their deaths just to show a single screen, why not use this opportunity to make it an actual tutorial and demonstrate basic tank battle tactics?
Then this training will not reach the goal - to tell about the statistics mode. About Tank tactics anyone can read in books and manuals, now it is very easy, if you wish.
Why not have the player split off a pair of tanks in a column to flank the Shermans, a sound strategy in almost any given situation? T
It will be a completely different training mission
We still have a game, not a training complex, for the player there is no additional guiding force in the form of a sergeant, which forces something to do. Do not interfere with everything in a bunch, the more everything train aspects in the mission, the less likely that it will be played and the player at least something will remember.
he manual can help in operations too- In the "tanks are practically impossible to destroy" topic on the steam forum, a player asks what to do when confronted by enemy tanks when not equipped to fight them and you dutifully responded. It would have been nice if the Operations tutorial mentioned retreat as a valid strategy, something most games don't even consider. The manual could have also given a basic overview of the operation itself- it doesn't have to be a proper guide, a simple warning not to immediately engage the tanks would have been enough. While Graviteam games may be too random for a tutorial campaign they aren't random enough that tactical advice can't be given at all. Illustrating simple strategies and how to execute them with the games mechanics is perfectly feasible, the only issue is a lack of will.
And how do you imagine this in practice?
Those. as it will look in the game, for example, these point: "retreat as a valid strategy"
General "strategies/rules/tactics" have one problem, how to apply them in a particular case (this is the one case where they will have to be applied). Ideally, if we do a tactical training complex, then we must have a rigid connection: tactical rule (in general), the situation where it is applicable, the corresponding actions of the opponent and the player.
With the last two points in the game is difficult - we can't force player's decisions, the AI is not hurry to act the same way.
As a result, we can tell the rules in general and hope that the player will apply them. But these rules are obvious and so, and there are lots of places (better than the game) where the player can read them.
So? It's a one time, minimal cost, quality of life improvement- who cares if some people don't read it? Who cares if they print it off and wipe their asses with it? Does it really make sense to deprive the entire community of paying customers and tell them "figure it out yourselves" because of one portion of it, especially when articles, reviews, and fans have been commenting on the poor quality of Graviteam game tutorials for so long? Your direct competition can write full fledged manuals for both each engine update and new content release but you refuse to add a few screenshots and tips?
If the manual was taken by itself, there really would not be any reason not to do it
. But unfortunately in our world, this does not happen. Producing and support the manual is required spending resources, it needs to be localized and maintained in the current state. That requires much more resources, all the time. And in a direction in which we have very low competencies.
Those. it turns out that instead of, for example, adding new vehicles, features, bug fixing, add new operations into the game, we make the manual and support it.
And so the question arises. If it is read by a vanishingly small percentage of players, is it effective (does it make sense at all) to spend resources on it?
And so I agree, it's much better to be
healthy and rich with good tactical manual than
poor and sick without it
. But this does not work, because the resources are very limited.