Jason Petho -> RE: Some new feature ideas (9/3/2019 5:58:05 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mord So, Captain is as small as we can go (for US at least). Yeah, It wouldn't work right if the only other guys named were Lts. (since they'd be the head of each platoon). It wouldn't be much more personal than what we already have. You'd never get a feel that Sgt. Black did something heroic, or Corporal Sims blew up a tank. etc. I always try to bring a bit of role-playing to wargames to help immerse me deeper in the experience, even if they are a bit more board gamey, hence my interest in names. But it is what it is. I can live with it. Yes, the captain would be fine. Although, you could add a second leader and call him Sgt Black. Of course, he would be working with a platoon, but you could role-play that Sgt Black lead a group to successfully capture an objective, destroy a platoon of tanks, and so on. quote:
ORIGINAL: Mord This wasn't very well thought out, even for 90s standards. You'd think they would've come up with something better back then. The whole point of computer games was to take the mundane calculating out of the players hands so they could concentrate on the tactics yet the simplest of things forces you to jump through math hoops to figure out how many men you have. LOL. So, I take it when a combat result says "Reduced by 1" you are losing a strength point which would equal 4 or 6 men? Keep in mind the originals of the original game, from board games. Where you would have step losses for your units on the map. I presume this is where this idea came from. "Reduced by 1" means you are sustaining enough casualties that half of a squad has been put out of action for the remainder of the scenario. (keep in mind that everything is based and limited to in Strength Points from movement to how many Strength Points can fit in a hex). quote:
ORIGINAL: Mord A lot of wargames seem to ignore this feature (along with naming units) or provide it in its most basic form. It's like the icing on the cake once a battle ends and adds to the role-playing immersion. It took us something like 4 years to see that added into the CM2 engine and it was sorely missed. While we are't adding this for 1.00, we are trying to add more immersion as you play by offering various messages popping up to let you know of your progress in any given scenario. quote:
ORIGINAL: Mord I knew I was reaching on that one, but I always hope to find ways to add more depth even if a game might be more on the abstract side visually. I've found extra bits of UI information can make a game as deep and engaging as if things were playing out right there in full 3D. An example might be CS Vietnam shows three men visually on the map but has a unit card listing everyone in the squad and shows who is wounded or killed whenever there is combat. The playing piece might be abstracted but the UI makes up for it by focusing on what's going on within the unit itself. That kind of thing. Yes, for sure. Great idea. One other thing to keep in mind is that we're not allowed to use real names, for legal reasons. So any card like that would have to be a generic one. Interesting idea though! quote:
ORIGINAL: Mord I personally think visuals are hugely important in wargames. I can't count how many times I've read someone bragging about how graphics make no difference and they don't care how a game looks as long as it plays well. Then they wonder why only five guys play the game. There is no reason you can't have both in the 21st Century. The biggest problem is it's usually an either or proposition. LOL. You get games that look beautiful like Steel Division II, but seems shallow and arcade-y, or something very deep like Steel Panthers but is butt ugly. I think the best thing you guys could do is to just create the path for more advanced graphics then there'd at least be the option for people to come along and update them over time. I play a lot of the battles on my 42 inch TV and still have a hard time making out what some things are (mostly the men based units). But don't get me wrong, I am not talking cutting edge triple A stuff here, but I don't know what that would entail. Moving to Png? But I will reiterate, I really dig the miniature look, towns, cities and terrain are very immersive in the ME game. You get a good feel for the sprawling urban environments, with their quarters and districts. And the desert can be vast and epic without your computer grinding to a halt. Some times looking at the really detailed maps it feels like you are staring at some guy's table top diorama that he spent five years putting together. I love all that detail and immersion. You guys are definitely headed in a good direction. Everything is currently moddable, which is super handy, but as you know there are limitations. Yes, PNG is an option being tossed around in the background, but we are focusing on the gameplay experience first. That comes at a cost and that cost is UI and graphics. In due time though, we have a lot of games in the queue! The other major hold back is our development budget. It's $0. Everyone working on the game is doing so out of a passion for the series or the subject matter or both. quote:
ORIGINAL: Mord I think I will, what with covering all the special features like LZs, tunnels, and utilizing Hueys, swift boats etc. It looks like you guys are really gonna capture the flavor of Nam. I am excited that I'll finally have a Vietnam game that will bring my books and DVDs to life and give me an avenue to experience the history on a more visceral level. We're really hoping so! Jason Petho
|
|
|
|