Gripes (Full Version)

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



Message

Clinchrifles -> Gripes (6/19/2015 3:22:48 AM)

I like the game and appreciate the work that was put into it. I still cant get over the attention to detail in the bull run map and roster. Having said that, know im still a great fan but there are several things that really upset me. Im just gonna throw this criticism at you guys and a)look for a response and/or b)rattle the cage.
1)I am still patiently waiting for a pbem turn replay. I just dont find enjoyment looking through the battle reports to see what has happened. I dont want to read all that bs. I dont like seeing enemy units appear from nowhere and wondering where they came from. I understand you have the move from arrows but frankly, I dont want all that sh!# on the screen and it kills performance. I really dont understand why more people who play pbem dont push for this as well. Is it just me?
2)Why in Bull Run can I cross Bull Run wherever I want? What is the point of the fords and bridges then? This baffles me as I have never read any account of any crossing outside of a bridge or ford. Is there a way this can be modded?
3)The whole idea of splitting units seems like an afterthought. This creates an advantage to the person who doesnt mind a little more managing to flank the enemy. Bab is strict on how many units a commander can command but you can split units with no malice whatsoever? No penalties for morale? No penalties for organization of the new unit? Is there some sort of counter to this? You would think my 700 man regiment would route a 350 man half unit that is not within the direct discipline of the regimental commander if I charged them.
4)Cavalry linked to brigades. My cavalry is 18 hexes away from my brigade commander but somehow must follow the brigade order to hold? I fully understand this cav unit NEEDS to be out of command but to make it follow a brigade order like hold makes no sense. Cav needs to operate more independently. I would love if you made the cav unit more prone to misunderstanding orders but make it independent from the brigade. Can we just attach cav to the generals?

Sorry to gripe. As i have said before, you guys made a stellar game. But dress a man up in a tux, give him a nice shave and cut, and have him put on his favorite pair of tennis shoes and everyone at the ball is only gonna see the tennis shoes.



ryan1488 -> RE: Gripes (6/19/2015 7:05:33 AM)

+1



marcpennington -> RE: Gripes (6/20/2015 2:09:17 AM)

I have mentioned similar PBEM concerns in other threads. Even if a true turn turn replay is a big deal, can we at least please have all the pop up messages (rout, officer killed, surrender, etc.) from a turn execution at least placed in the turn execution history so we can read them after the fact in a PBEM game? I have mentioned this elsewhere, but it bears repeating. And to repeat again from other threads, why do we see the turn replay at the start of a PBEM turn from a weird semi-opponent version of FOW?

But I agree with the above post (and others elsewhere) that how bad the PBEM++ play experience is at the moment is starting to give me a negative impression of the game, despite how much I'm growing to appreciate the system otherwise. Making this game a functional PBEM one really needs to be worked on as a priority, especially for the (I imagine large number, and including me) of hardcore war gamers who only play and learn these games over PBEM.

Also, that whole crossing of creeks thing has been baffling me as well. I understand the ZOC blocking crossings, but they seem to be way to easy otherwise.



Clinchrifles -> RE: Gripes (6/20/2015 3:13:53 AM)

Your not seeing a "turn replay" so to speak of your opponent, you are just seeing the combat phase of it. This is actually well thought out so the opponent doesnt watch the combat phase and restart his turn if the results werent favorable. Maybe you meant why you are zoomed to a location on the map where your opponent is moving (without seeing the units), in that case I dont know why it happens but I do know what you are talking about.



marcpennington -> RE: Gripes (6/20/2015 4:22:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Clinchrifles

Your not seeing a "turn replay" so to speak of your opponent, you are just seeing the combat phase of it. This is actually well thought out so the opponent doesnt watch the combat phase and restart his turn if the results werent favorable. Maybe you meant why you are zoomed to a location on the map where your opponent is moving (without seeing the units), in that case I dont know why it happens but I do know what you are talking about.



Just to be clear here, I'm talking about the way one watches the execution phase after one loads the PBEM turn. I imagine (though I haven't tried), that the game is actually executing the phase then, and that the the results would change if you exited and restarted a PBEM turn--- AKA say one regiment took 50 casualties in an exceptionally negative result, it wouldn't necessarily happen if you rebooted and did again. On top of that, when one starts the PBEM turn, one sees a weird mash of your own and your opponent's FOW, which is hard to describe, but very easy to see just by starting up a PBEM game, doing a couple turns, and seeing what happens.

But more to the point, in PBEM, we're not getting the same info, particularly the pop-ups and detailed attack reports, that one gets when playing single player against the AI. All this combines to PBEM making the overall game experience a lot less than it really should be.



Gil R. -> RE: Gripes (6/21/2015 10:55:38 PM)

Not ignoring you... These are all issues for Eric (= programmer), but he is off on vacation in Italy, as part of his attending the big Matrix/Slitherine get-together there (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=1502). I'd hoped he might be able to respond, but one can hardly blame a guy for following the rules of being on vacation to the letter. So, it is likely to be another week or so before there is a meaningful response here. Apologies for the delay!

I myself am still back in the good, ol' U.S. of A., so if there are issues that I can handle I'll respond to them. But anything involving code (like that division activation issue in the other thread) is beyong my competence.

You want to know my level of programming competence? Let me show you something that showcases my abilities:
10 PRINT "Gil did not program BAB and therefore cannot answer questions about the code."
20 GOTO 10
25 REM Since this is an infinite loop I do not really need an END command, but it's good to be in that habit, so:
30 END




marcpennington -> RE: Gripes (6/21/2015 11:07:16 PM)

LOL, that's still better then my programming ability.

But vacations should be vacations as well. Hopefully he'll be able to take a look at it when he gets back.



Clinchrifles -> RE: Gripes (6/22/2015 12:30:53 AM)

Thanks for the reply Gil!



shoelessbivouac -> RE: Gripes (6/23/2015 6:53:34 PM)

All good observations / questions, Clinchrifles

-- I believe PBEM Replay has been discussed here for possible implementation in a future update. While I don't know how time-consuming (and costly) this might prove for our master BAB programmer, I do agree that this remains a highly desirable option on the current BAB Wish List.

-- Crossing Bull Run (it was never all that much of a crossing deterrent, I believe) at any point - unlike the Antietam, for example - was (going on memory from distant reading on the subject), an available historical option to both sides, but, wasn't conducted due to 1) mass unit coordination? 2) lack of advanced scouting for cannon-wagon friendly fords? Still, I haven't yet played the Bull Run scenario just to see exactly how units are additionally penalized (apparently not at all as per your post?) for crossing Bull Run at any point, as opposed to crossing at a bridge or known ford.

-- While unit(s) may be assigned ("attached") to another command, the game doesn't offer a "detached / independent" option to assign units.

The ability to detach / assign independent command to a unit - especially, as in your example, a Cavalry unit - makes historically good sense and, hence, would be a most welcome addition to BAB.

Incidentally, Clinchrifles, I love your tuxedo and tennis shoe analogy! priceless!



ericbabe -> RE: Gripes (7/6/2015 3:12:02 PM)

Thank you for all the useful feedback.

Is the main thing you all would like to see in a replay feature unit movement and combat results?

The ability to give a regiment an independent order from its brigade is something I've long wanted to add, but this is a fairly major feature and at present I'm prioritizing fixes to PBEM problems and things that are simpler to address.

The ability to cross Bull Run comes from the "minimum movement rule" which allows a unit to move one hex regardless of cost. This is a rule we added by the overwhelming demand of our testers. Bull Run can be crossed more easily at fords at bridges. It wouldn't not be so difficult to disallow the minimum movement rule across Bull Run, however we spent months testing and tweaking the AI with this rule in place and I'm not quite sure whether the AI relies on it very much or not. I think I would want to make sure we tested any change to this rule very well before we make any haphazard changes.



marcpennington -> RE: Gripes (7/6/2015 7:05:01 PM)

Indeed, as far as replay goes, that would be great as well as the contents of all the pop-up messages that one currently does not receive in PBEM. I think I suggested it in this thread earlier, but a system where one clicks on the combat results in the history listing and gets the detailed attack report from it, as well as seperate color coded messages that bring up any pop-ups would go a long way, even if a "true" replay is not possible.



Clinchrifles -> RE: Gripes (7/7/2015 12:45:42 AM)

Thanks for the reply Eric. I honestly think the replay is crucial (to those that play pbem). I really feel lost without it.



aaatoysandmore -> RE: Gripes (7/7/2015 9:40:49 AM)

When you do an ancients game call me, until then this is all GREEK to me. [:D]



marcpennington -> RE: Gripes (7/8/2015 4:32:01 PM)

As regards the river question above, I don't remember the Bull Run battlefield enough to know how practical crossings at various places were. But perhaps one "compromise" solution might be to make the effects of a crossing at somewhere other than a bridge or ford more damaging. I.e. if a unit does, it becomes disordered and takes a hit to morale and supply--- i.e. their boots and gunpowder are wet, and the soldiers aren't happy campers...

Also, it should be noted that the question mark in the starter scenario on that redoubt next to the bridge describes it as a strong position because the only way to approach it was in column formation over the bridge. In the current game, one can just use the one hex crossing creek move and advance on the fort in line formation. If the need to be in column was a real historical consideration at that redoubt (and I know it was undefended historically), than maybe the creek crossing rules do really need to be examined more fundamentally.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.59375