Screenshots of long-awaited maps (a.k.a., Now, does this look like vaporware to you?) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Brother against Brother: The Drawing of the Sword



Message

Gil R. -> Screenshots of long-awaited maps (a.k.a., Now, does this look like vaporware to you?) (4/3/2014 10:29:08 PM)

It's taken a while, and some were beginning to doubt whether this game would ever show signs of life, but the BAB maps are now all done, other than some proofing and tweaking. These have been the crucial step for finishing the game, not only because we can't release a Civil War tactical game without battlefield maps better than my hand-drawn sketches, but because it is hard to test on maps made of beta-graphics. So we now have maps, and testing should pick up speed... all with the intention of a release later this year. So, those of you who have been waiting for this game should take this as a very good sign that there will indeed be such a game before too much longer. And, to whet your appetites (again), here are some screenshots from the Manassas and Williamsburg maps. (Wilson's Creek has been finished for well over a year, and screenshots can be found elsewhere in this forum; Mill Springs I can post another time.)

First, here is a way zoomed-out image of the raw Manassas map, which actually contains all of the 1st Manassas and 2nd Manassas battlefields. The overall area it covers is something like 80 square miles, but we will carve from it two rectangles measuring about 5 miles x 10 miles, one for 1st Manassas (for BAB#1) and the other for 2nd Manassas (for BAB#2). It made far more sense to make one massive map than to do one map and then later do the other. So in this image, which has greatly reduced resolution so as to be uploaded on the forum, you can see that I have put labels on some key points of the map. (The game is limited to maps no larger than 50 square miles, with each hex representing roughly 75 yards. These are BIG maps...)


[image]local://upfiles/16018/7AC1CE361DE5498287C7D3BA6E71FCE0.jpg[/image]



Gil R. -> RE: Now, does this look like vaporware to you? (4/3/2014 10:29:46 PM)

And here is the first of two details from the 1st Manassas area. This shows Henry Hill. (Stonewall Jackson's famous stand was a bit north of the word "Hill.")


[image]local://upfiles/16018/EF77CE2A986A4349B9D5900FCD6BF036.jpg[/image]



Gil R. -> RE: Now, does this look like vaporware to you? (4/3/2014 10:30:16 PM)

And here is Matthews Hill, due north of Henry Hill, where a few Confederate units attacked the Union's column as it came south along the road.


[image]local://upfiles/16018/546DE489A1E54B658BE11A6F89343A79.jpg[/image]



Gil R. -> RE: Now, does this look like vaporware to you? (4/3/2014 10:31:31 PM)

And here, not to be seen until BAB#2, is part of the 2nd Manassas battlefield: Brawner's Farm, site of the first day's fighting.



[image]local://upfiles/16018/B9FC24B8E8AC427BB963FBF0B84BAAE9.jpg[/image]



Gil R. -> RE: Now, does this look like vaporware to you? (4/3/2014 10:32:11 PM)

Moving on to Williamsburg, I didn't bother doing a zoomed-out image, but we show the whole area for maneuvering, not just the area around Fort Magruder where the fighting took place. The map is roughly 5 x 5 miles, as I recall. First, here is a detail from the area around Tutters Neck Pond, which the Union would have found a very difficult path to take had they tried to attack from the south.


[image]local://upfiles/16018/7937DCC496FF48F7851FDFBEECBCD499.jpg[/image]



Gil R. -> RE: Now, does this look like vaporware to you? (4/3/2014 10:32:49 PM)

And here are some redoubts to the north of Fort Magruder. The Union attack came from the south and southeast, with one artillery battery setting up at the cornfield.


[image]local://upfiles/16018/E21302CE11A94ABCB7D416D0AE4153CE.jpg[/image]



Gil R. -> RE: Now, does this look like vaporware to you? (4/3/2014 10:33:56 PM)

And finally (for now) here are the northermost redoubts. Redoubt 14 is the one Hancock had to get past during his flanking march -- and fortunately for him, the Confederates had left it undefended.

In addition to fighting the "historical" battle, players will be able to try different ways of assaulting this line of fortifications, which is why we have ALL of them in there. I should add, with humility suddenly leaving me, that based on my exhaustive research the map of Williamsburg that we will have in BAB will be the most extensive and detailed map of the battlefield produced, and beats anything you can find in the books on the battle or the Peninsula Campaign. So Civil War buffs should love this one, because they'll see something they haven't really seen before.


[image]local://upfiles/16018/D63892EE04CA4272A761778C5F8F0CE6.jpg[/image]



berto -> RE: Now, does this look like vaporware to you? (4/4/2014 6:25:55 AM)


It's great to see this series moving forward. I hope you find time to continue (resume?) supporting CoH too.



KASHANKA -> RE: Now, does this look like vaporware to you? (4/4/2014 3:41:03 PM)

The screenshots are really very impressive. I love how the fences around the fields and along rads are clearly visible.
This sort of "small" terrain features is exactly what a good XVII-XIX century warfare oriented tactical game should include. I am really looking orward to seeng where this goes.

Only wish so far is that I still hope that given the tactical scope and possible multi-day combat lenght, that casualities will be divided into dead/wounded/missing. That way during nighttime or other "passive" turns, some of the wounded and missing could be returned to the ranks to add gameplay depth. In each XIX century conflict where you had a large number of green and unprofessional troops (wether it wa sthe French war in Mexico, the Polish uprising of 1863 or the US civil war), there was everywhere and unprecedented number of people who broke off and ran or fell into what we would today describe as "shellshock". But these people would often be back into combat as quickly and as suddenly as they left it.
The old "Civil War Generals 2" game might have had some downsides, but it excelled in simulating the fluidity of unit cohesion and wounded/missing people going back into the fight. I hope you guys manage to simulate that as well.

Looking forward to hearing more about the game. [:D]



wiking62 -> RE: Now, does this look like vaporware to you? (4/5/2014 1:58:58 PM)

Great screenshots Gil.[&o]



vonRocko -> RE: Now, does this look like vaporware to you? (4/8/2014 3:11:59 PM)

Yes, very nice stuff!



wodin -> RE: Now, does this look like vaporware to you? (4/30/2014 12:14:23 PM)

Lovely maps!! Posted on my FB page:)



scattergun -> RE: Screenshots of long-awaited maps (a.k.a., Now, does this look like vaporware to you?) (5/18/2014 2:09:03 PM)

Very nice! Watching this game close to catch updates!



Gil R. -> RE: Now, does this look like vaporware to you? (6/7/2014 9:12:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KASHANKA

The screenshots are really very impressive. I love how the fences around the fields and along rads are clearly visible.
This sort of "small" terrain features is exactly what a good XVII-XIX century warfare oriented tactical game should include. I am really looking orward to seeng where this goes.

Only wish so far is that I still hope that given the tactical scope and possible multi-day combat lenght, that casualities will be divided into dead/wounded/missing. That way during nighttime or other "passive" turns, some of the wounded and missing could be returned to the ranks to add gameplay depth. In each XIX century conflict where you had a large number of green and unprofessional troops (wether it wa sthe French war in Mexico, the Polish uprising of 1863 or the US civil war), there was everywhere and unprecedented number of people who broke off and ran or fell into what we would today describe as "shellshock". But these people would often be back into combat as quickly and as suddenly as they left it.
The old "Civil War Generals 2" game might have had some downsides, but it excelled in simulating the fluidity of unit cohesion and wounded/missing people going back into the fight. I hope you guys manage to simulate that as well.

Looking forward to hearing more about the game. [:D]



Oops, I've been way too lax in responding to this thread.

Regarding your suggestion, it's a good one, but we're lumping all casualties together. Once the game is out we will, as per tradition, post a "Wish List" thread and consider all suggestions, and this one would indeed be worth considering it. But to make such a change now has a high risk of introducing new bugs, so it's best not to mess with our casualties system. (And I should add that for BAB#1 all of the battles are single-day, so this is less of an issue.) (And I should add to that that since the game does keep track of original strength it would not -- to my limited knowledge as a non-programmer -- but too difficult to find some formula for having X% of casualties return to a unit overnight. But interface issues would probably be the bigger challenge.)



Gil R. -> RE: Now, does this look like vaporware to you? (6/7/2014 9:13:43 AM)

Thanks to the rest of you for your comments. I've been too busy working on the game to take the time to post screenshots, but really should do so soon. Maybe instead of making my own I'll steal them from the testers.



Anthropoid -> RE: Now, does this look like vaporware to you? (1/20/2015 10:57:47 PM)

These are lovely maps Gil. As a returning tester, I would also like to point out that, the way the map functions in game is quite satisfying. Overall the UI will be familiar to Forge of Freedom players, but it has a lot of enhancements. I'd say there is still room for some improving tweaks. But on the whole I think that this UI and map / display set take the engine quit far along on its possible evolutionary path. Meaning: its a lot better than the old FoF tactical maps! I don't know if it is the "limit" of the engine and graphical set, but it has moved in that direction quite nicely.

The map has some degree of zoomability and at least some units have hypertext that cause the main map to center on the unit.

Just getting started on play testing this but I agree with some of the other testers that this has the potential to be a real hit. What I need to see is that the AI is competent, and that the translation between playing against the AI versus human opponents is fluid and sensible.



Gil R. -> RE: Now, does this look like vaporware to you? (1/21/2015 12:30:03 AM)

Thanks for your comments. It's good to see Dr. Evil back in a WCS-related sub-forum.



Anthropoid -> RE: Now, does this look like vaporware to you? (1/21/2015 12:44:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Thanks for your comments. It's good to see Dr. Evil back in a WCS-related sub-forum.


All part of my plan for global domiNAtion.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Now, does this look like vaporware to you? (1/21/2015 1:02:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

These are lovely maps Gil. As a returning tester, I would also like to point out that, the way the map functions in game is quite satisfying. Overall the UI will be familiar to Forge of Freedom players, but it has a lot of enhancements. I'd say there is still room for some improving tweaks. But on the whole I think that this UI and map / display set take the engine quit far along on its possible evolutionary path. Meaning: its a lot better than the old FoF tactical maps! I don't know if it is the "limit" of the engine and graphical set, but it has moved in that direction quite nicely.

The map has some degree of zoomability and at least some units have hypertext that cause the main map to center on the unit.

Just getting started on play testing this but I agree with some of the other testers that this has the potential to be a real hit. What I need to see is that the AI is competent, and that the translation between playing against the AI versus human opponents is fluid and sensible.


Please note - this is the public forum. Post any testing feedback in the private forum only. I moved your other thread to the private forum.

Regards,

- Erik



Anthropoid -> RE: Now, does this look like vaporware to you? (1/21/2015 1:39:24 AM)

Ah my bad. I was actually wondering what all these non-tester's were doing in here! [:o] Sorry.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.669922