RE: Important changes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> WW2: Road to Victory



Message

JudgeDredd -> RE: Important changes (8/27/2008 12:05:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader
...WW2:RtV is not a totally historical simulation of World War 2. I think that the best description would be Casual Grand Strategy Game focused for land combat. We know and I think that some of you already know that it is not a game where you simulate or replay history. It’s rather a game where you can play a war.

That's all I expected and all I got. Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader
Anyway, I would like to thank you for helping make this game better.

And thank you for providing my evenings entertainment of late. [:D]



winky51 -> RE: Important changes (8/27/2008 2:53:16 PM)

Doomtrader, make a good editor for the game.  This will resolve most of your problems.  All this research your guys are doing to make a more historical feel for the game can be better spent making an editor.  Let us make the sceanrios.  Ive done it for SC2 and CEAW.  What I recommended is a function of the game, mostly naval.



SeaMonkey -> RE: Important changes (8/27/2008 3:54:08 PM)

What W51 just alluded to is probably the most important and most difficult aspect of a WW2 strategic simulation to get right.

Now I know you said you were concentrating on land combat, but eventually if you wish to incorporate what is learned from the public beta of RTV into Bitter Glory then you will need to expand into the area of air/naval interaction.

I would suggest that you should start working on those mechanics right away.  What the users want is a realistic set of features to design with.  You can provide a base set of scenarios with the game as an example, but it is the users that will use a well interfaced editor to create scenarios that will make or break your entry into this genre.

I'll hold TOAW up as an example.  Another .....PzGeneral...... and of course SC.  AT is on the right track, so is the AA series.  Combined Arms will fit the bill.........you get my drift!



James Ward -> RE: Important changes (8/27/2008 5:07:24 PM)

There are many WWII games with really good land and air systems. There are few, if any, with good land, air and naval systems that cover the whole war. Most games fail to provide a good naval system because tere are two vastly different aspects of it and they are generally lumped together. I think one could be designed but I don't know if it could be incporporated into this particular game.
In the ETO the main naval war revolved around submarine warfare. In the Pacific it was carriers, surface combat and invasions. The battle for the North Atlantic can actually be abstracted easily in the form of 'effort' placed on sub and anti sub warfare. The respective efforts determine the relative success, in the form of reduced supply/production points/whatever getting through. You could also use this to a degree in the Pacific. The cost of the effort per nation, technological improvements etc would need to be accounted for but overall this part would the naval system should be separated from the other naval aspect.




Severian -> RE: Important changes (8/27/2008 5:26:36 PM)

quote:

Now I know you said you were concentrating on land combat, but eventually if you wish to incorporate what is learned from the public beta of RTV into Bitter Glory then you will need to expand into the area of air/naval interaction.

Bitter Glory will be a Grand Strategy game with a lot of micromanagemant (automatisation will be possible). BG is other kind game than RTV. I hobe you'll enjoy BG  when will be ready ;)
quote:

I would suggest that you should start working on those mechanics right away.

Hmmm... work is in progress ;)
quote:

Most games fail to provide a good naval system

I'm team naval maniac :) Naval combat will be one of our strong aspects :)



mustang96 -> RE: Important changes (8/27/2008 6:36:03 PM)

Hi
So there is no real naval battles in the game?What are subs used for?Are there convoys to destroy?Does Germany get
shipments from Sweden?
Thanks for any answers.
Mustang




Severian -> RE: Important changes (8/27/2008 6:51:19 PM)

Yes, there are naval battles
Subs can fight against enemy fleets and convoys
Yes, convoys are present in the game
There is no trade in RTV



SeaMonkey -> RE: Important changes (8/27/2008 6:56:02 PM)

Actually JW the "real" ETO naval battles were in the Med.

If you want to get the air/naval/convoy interaction correct all you got to do is get the WW2 Med naval battles down.

The PTO came second, it was from here(Med) the Japs learned how to use their carriers.



KuniworthII -> RE: Important changes (8/27/2008 9:20:37 PM)

New suggestions? I thought most of the guys here had their hands full with crossdressing activities.

Dev team: have some more soup and back to work. Lets see what that polish polish is worth(like how good is the turkey in turkey?)



James Ward -> RE: Important changes (8/27/2008 9:33:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

Actually JW the "real" ETO naval battles were in the Med.

If you want to get the air/naval/convoy interaction correct all you got to do is get the WW2 Med naval battles down.

The PTO came second, it was from here(Med) the Japs learned how to use their carriers.


There wasn't a lot of fleet action in the Med compared to the Pacific.
In game terms supply interdiction in the Med would be similiar to the battle of the Atlantic. If you wanted to try to portray surface action in the Med it would most likely be similiar to what you would do it in the Pacific. Most games covering all of WWII suffer because they don't make distinctions between the role of subs in Europe versus surface actions, they try to make a single system do both and it doesn't work well.



KuniworthII -> RE: Important changes (8/27/2008 9:43:14 PM)

Bug:

As Germany I defeated all other nations, USA beeing the last. Still the game said that France take over as allied alliance leader despite they beeing completly annexed. SO game doesnt end it just keeps going with no enemy left on the board. How weird is that.



doomtrader -> RE: Important changes (8/27/2008 11:42:34 PM)

Kuni, France should be off from the game. That's weird.
Could you please sent me your save game?



James Ward -> RE: Important changes (8/28/2008 2:17:54 AM)

I've had two games where a nation declares war on a nation that just was eliminated. Once Germany did it to Russia and once Russia did it to Germany. Both times it happened on the turn after the surrender.



Magpius -> RE: Important changes (8/28/2008 7:53:37 AM)

Q: are we playing road to victory, or did we pay $$$ to beta test bitter glory?
[:'(]



doomtrader -> RE: Important changes (8/28/2008 8:19:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Agent S

Q: are we playing road to victory, or did we pay $$$ to beta test bitter glory?
[:'(]



Bitter Glory is completly different game, engine, design etc.



Severian -> RE: Important changes (8/28/2008 8:41:55 AM)

I suggest to read few things about Bitter Glory on our web site and compare screens. Then you will see great differences [;)]



JMass -> RE: Important changes (8/28/2008 9:39:13 AM)

I don't like rts games, I tried to play HoI and I uninstalled it after some hours so I am sorry but I'll not buy Bitter Glory. I hope to see a better WW2RtS so please work together on this and leave out off topics.
[;)]



doomtrader -> RE: Important changes (8/28/2008 9:43:45 AM)

quote:

please work together on this and leave out off topics

good point



Magpius -> RE: Important changes (8/28/2008 12:11:58 PM)

c'mon guys.
just stirring.
I'm really enjoying this game, and wish it all success.
Long time SC1 fan, and hoping this surpasses it.



Widell -> RE: Important changes (8/28/2008 8:47:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JMass
I don't like rts games, I tried to play HoI and I uninstalled it after some hours so I am sorry but I'll not buy Bitter Glory. I hope to see a better WW2RtS so please work together on this and leave out off topics.
[;)]


I love HoI, and looking at the pictures of BG, it looks like I'll fall in love with that too. However, I would be even more in love with a turn based game of similar type. Not sure if I'd label HoI or BG as RTS though... RTP maybe, but arguing about RTS or RTP is like splitting hair I guess.... [:D]



doomtrader -> RE: Important changes (8/28/2008 9:58:46 PM)

But HoI and BG are turn based games

Every hour is a small turn and every day is a large turn*.



*There are also some things which are recalculated every moth and every annexation.



JMass -> RE: Important changes (8/28/2008 10:32:04 PM)

So I was not able to find the "end turn" button?
[:D]

I play wargames from the end of '70, turn based games forever!
[8D]



Lucky1 -> RE: Important changes (8/28/2008 10:52:45 PM)

Although there is nothing wrong in making the game more 'historic', I think we should keep in mind that it is a game. As such, gameplay should be the first priority. In other words, I think the first order of the day is to work on cleaning up AI. The rest, frankly, is less important. I won't play the game no matter how historically accurate the map is if the AI does not work.

Simple.



GJK -> RE: Important changes (8/29/2008 12:01:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucky1

Although there is nothing wrong in making the game more 'historic', I think we should keep in mind that it is a game. As such, gameplay should be the first priority. In other words, I think the first order of the day is to work on cleaning up AI. The rest, frankly, is less important. I won't play the game no matter how historically accurate the map is if the AI does not work.

Simple.



So are we to assume that you will only play with yourself then?

Sorry, couldn't resist. [:D]



Lucky1 -> RE: Important changes (8/29/2008 12:46:59 AM)

I am an equal opportunity player. My wife says I play too much. She insists that I should only play with her. But, she does not like to play that often. Since we had kids, we hardly play at all. So it looks like it is just me and my right.... whoa. Were you talking about AI?



wargamer123 -> RE: Important changes (8/29/2008 2:35:20 AM)

HOI is slightly turn based..as the RTS factor and the general rules can allow for sleeping on the job.
Though HOI isn't a hexagon strategy game, the territory system and the game engine make it a big different.
I get the feeling with HOI that I'm playing most paradox titles. SC1/CEAW/This by the looks of it appear more like moving little tanks, corps, airplanes, ships around to do things. Bit Godlike, and a board game quality.

So many options, so many things coming out, SC is releasing Pacific Theatre. Hoi is releaing version 3 next year. You guys showed a new WW2 game in production. All this stuff, and World in Flames is even scheduled due some time, maybe...

P.S. I've been looking at this and war between the states for a some beer and pretzels. I'm a little worried GG's game will be a little too defensive for 1 side and too offensive for the other. Though that is history. Hard to pick.....Not sure if this game would be more Hardcore, kill KILL KILL, ;) and new options that some other HexWW2s dont have



KuniworthII -> RE: Important changes (8/29/2008 8:36:23 AM)

HoI is a good game but I can't stand the RTS, fingerspeed is more important than strategy.



Severian -> RE: Important changes (8/29/2008 9:03:04 AM)

"adjustable game speed, active pause" - and problems are solved :)



wargamer123 -> RE: Important changes (8/29/2008 9:29:35 AM)

Kuniworth, HOI2 is very little to do with fingerclicking. Depending on the game speed and the amount of detail, it's so immense that even a few mistakes won't influence the game. You see the marching, you see the planes moving.. Whether or not the province system is accurate is another story, but I believe that the System for it's day was New Age.

Problem is the immensity of HOI's engine requires so much patience, and you need such dedication to finish a game. It's about 100 Xs more complicated than an average strategic command. Perhaps even more and that can deflect from some of the fun. Simplicity is not a staple of a game like that. and why I think WIF may be just too hard to grasp for the average gamer as well



Phatguy -> RE: Important changes (8/29/2008 9:32:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kuniworth II

As I said I keep on posting and hopefully devs pick it up for next patch. Just talking basics here.

Finland should not be pro-axis, but turn pro-axis after a much needed winter war event in which the Soviet Union should capture Vyborg and Karelia. It should enter war automatically if Germany declares war on Soviet Union(not if Soviets declare war on Germany, has to do with winning back territory). Otherwise Finland will stay neutral and not be persuaded to go to war with Germany, only if barbarossa is commencing.

Yugoslavia should start pro-axis but be couped into pro-allied camp(not enter war) in 1941. With high percentage this would most certainly mean a german player would probably invade(as what really happen) instead of risking a threat in the flank with barbarossa coming up.


I'm not sure if I like the fact that if I play the soviets I have to have a "winter War" event foisted on me just to be historically correct. I play this game for fun and to possibly change the outcome. If I dont want to thump the Finns I really dont think I should have to.
About Yugoslavia. Are you suggesting having a trigger to switch the pro from Axis to Allied automatically in 1941?



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.609375