Not turning out as I thought (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> FlashPoint Germany



Message

Adam Parker -> Not turning out as I thought (2/21/2005 1:09:32 AM)

I've only worked my way through half the rules and have been impressed with the dedication in design given to making the "command experience" for the player as realistically frustrating as possible - ie in terms of order delay, execution delay and informational delay etc. The decision to go against the grain of traditional god's-eye wargame design is a good one.

However these efforts IMO have not been fully successful and I feel that play as a result hasn't become all as engrossing, as it could have been.

1. When units take losses on the battlefield, immediate loss information is given to the player regarding both friendly and enemy casualities. When using the show vehicle numbers option for the on-map counters, these are pretty much updated immediately too. So whilst players are handicapped in having orders exectuted without delay etc., and given at times, out-of-date status info in the side-pannels, players will always know where their own units are on the map at all times and the losses they've inflicted/taken with each combat. God's-eye IOW still persists in a manner inconsistent with the what I think are the game's intended aims.

2. I actually agree with past posters in that players really need do nothing to win. As direct combat has been taken completely out of a player's control (the AI always determines who shoots at what and when) there's IMO no real feel of combat command. Sure it was great wiping out NATO in the scenario's I've played - but I didn't need to be in front of the screen for it to happen!

3. The provision for allowing players to set "doctrine" does not really relate to "combat doctrine" at all. The 80's requirement for Soviets to maneuver en masse and pre-plan its artillery missions for example are not provided for. Other than using the limited command point option (which IMO should be mandatory) there appears to be no difference in feel from Soviet to NATO command. "Doctrine" therefore can be a misleading term in this game for those expecting a true 80's command experience.

4. Lastly for the purposes of this post, the AI does as others have previously pointed out, have a tendency to give up its defensive missions and rush the attacker to its deteriment. AI HQ's charge into the fray when their command spans give no reason to do so. This does not include the AI's reported lack of use of helicopters etc., which I believe the 1st patch will soon address.

But for me, it's point 2 that really leaves the least satisfaction.

I love the provision for pre-scenario force placement. For general imporvements I'd like to see movement paths showing where units have moved from during turn execution. I'd like to see combat firing paths showing more easily who is firing at what.

I can't understand that given other series where these simple features can be studied and employed that they haven't been taken on and even refined further in FPG. Whilst to the contrary, almost unbelievable design attention has been given to allow players to finely tweak map scrolling to the millisecond! Inside and outside map boundaries!

In fact, if there was one solid retail suggestion, it would be to set the game up with fast autoscrolling, outside the map on first load. Otherwise the current default settings (ie sluggish scrolling and needing to actually touch the map edge etc) hark back to older game designs and even adopt one of the worst features of titles such as "The Operational Art of War". IOW, always go with the most user-friendly, intuitive, contemporary, fast and logical user-settings as a game's default. Let gamers then slow or hamper things down after - not visa versa.

Despite the map art and graphics, my intial feel in loading FGP up was that I was playing a retro war game of sorts, following mistakes made in designs such as Russo-German War. DOS at its worst. Once I read how to tweak map scrolling to more "modern" levels I calmed a bit. Then point 2 hit me with the other points around it.

I look forward to the first patch to see what in feel has changed. At least FPG does boast stability and relative ease of interface. Managing stacks however, is very cumbersome and confusing. It can be quite hard without some on-counter indication, to tell whether a unit in a stack has already been given an order or whether you've indeed toggled a unit you wish to give orders to. Truly the only way to avoid this confusion at present, would be to toggle unit org ID's on. But why be forced to change toggles when a player is using on-counter vehicle count for example? That's just another couple of unnecessary clicks. From turn to turn in the orders phase, a player already needs to invoke "show all movement paths" repeatedly as between executions, this feature turns itself off.

In summary, an interesting design sitting between others in scale at the individual unit and operational levels. But rather than taking the best of these past design efforts from these other companies, FPG appears to have adopted some of the poorest. These evaluations are each to his/her own of course but IMO there is nothing more tedious than watching combat occur out of a player's control.

This game is not like putting the book Team Yankee into play, where a manic battle field sees a commander's carefully placed overwatch forces panic as a Soviet behemoth looms over the hills into the kill zone, with another threatens encirclement.

In FGP, we just get jerkily moving unit counters plodding, two-stepping, freezing, firing, up-down-side-way'sing, pot-shotting away without rhyme or reason and the human commander really needs do nothing about it.

Btw for those playing with a sub-woofer, artillery sounds like a baseball echoing off a toilet bowl. Machine gun fire - like aluminium foil.

Solution - really the only way I've found to avoid the tedium in total - press "Q", the sounds turn off and the wait of baseball artillery amongst other things is thankfully taken away.

Sorry to report these feelings but there [:(]they are as my 0.02.
Adam.



JudgeDredd -> RE: Not turning out as I thought (2/21/2005 1:22:42 PM)

I'm not going to jump in at the big stuff you pointed out there...that will be for Rob to deal with, and look at I'm sure he will...

But I am going to suggest that your comment on sound is way off the mark...and that is mo.

I think the sounds are fantastic....and realistic. I've heard Milans firing. I've heard artillery being shot and I've heard artillery landing. I've heard mortars being fired and I have to say they are right on the money.

My 2p.



Sonny -> RE: Not turning out as I thought (2/21/2005 1:33:44 PM)

Don't remember what sound it is but one of them sounds like someone knocking over metal trash cans. Heard a similar sound in WitP before they changed the bombardment sound.

Never heard any modern weapons fire, land or hit so I may be "off target" but it sounds strange to the uninitiated.



Adam Parker -> RE: Not turning out as I thought (2/21/2005 2:24:50 PM)

That's it Sonny.

NATO artillery sounds like someone's taken a big stick into a toilet/bathroom and started banging the insides of a trash can. When a hit occurs they've taken the lids, banged 'em together and kicked over the can to cap it off.

Dredd the background sounds are nice but the "trum trum trum trum trum trum echoooo"of NATO arty is just not my cuppa. I've heard better. The baseball and toilet analogy only makes sense with the echo taken into consideration. Do you play FPG with a subwoofer?

I will however describe the IFV fire differently to ripping aluminium. It's more like a rapid drumroll on a sheet of canvass crossed with the static a speaker makes when trebble scrambles a tweeter.

The issue in FPG is that the more sounds the player hears of a particular type, the more powerful/sustained the actual combat of that type is meant to be. So the overall effect of powerful combat event is sound looping of a particular sound type - IOW trum trum trum etc of a garbage can or the scrtaching of a tweeter.



JudgeDredd -> RE: Not turning out as I thought (2/21/2005 2:28:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

That's it Sonny.

NATO artillery sounds like someone's taken a big stick into a toilet/bathroom and started banging the insides of a trash can. When a hit occurs they've taken the lids, banged 'em together and kicked over the can to cap it off.

Dredd the background sounds are nice but the "trum trum trum trum trum trum echoooo"of NATO arty is just not my cuppa. I've heard better. The baseball and toilet analogy only makes sense with the echo taken into consideration. Do you play FPG with a subwoofer?

I will however describe the IFV fire differently to ripping aluminium. It's more like a rapid drumroll on a sheet of canvass crossed with the static a speaker makes when trebble scrambles a tweeter.

The issue in FPG is that the more sounds the player hears of a particular type, the more powerful/sustained the actual combat of that type is meant to be. So the overall effect of powerful combat event is sound looping of a particular sound type - IOW trum trum trum etc of a garbage can or the scrtaching of a tweeter.


I can't agree. I think the sounds are spot on. I don't have a subwoofer, so maybe there is the prob...for you or I...all I know is on my system, the sounds are awesome and, in my experience in the military, spot on. Of course different platforms make different noises, but they are realistic imo.



CapnDarwin -> RE: Not turning out as I thought (2/21/2005 2:35:29 PM)

Adam,

The sounds are wav files. Find some others that shake your walls and plug them in. I'm more interested in how you would "fix" the combat system to have the more hands on feel. I'm sure any good idea would be looked at by the Dev's. Those guys are working hard to tweak things as we speak.

S!

Cap'n



Adam Parker -> RE: Not turning out as I thought (2/21/2005 2:45:27 PM)

Ok I just played Soviet Tank rush as the Soviets. My objective was to take Rensenbach in the west.

I didn't move a single unit. NATO which should have been on the defense attacked and moved every one of its units bar the Blues and Royals HQ, 1AT and A Battery within 2-5 hexes of my default positioned, massed Soviet armor. Every other NATO HQ moved within 2 hexes of 10 companies of Soviet T80's.

Every NATO unit bar the aforementioned three, was subsequently lost and I scored a draw. NATO lost all 10 troops of armor, all 3 maneuver HQ's, all its recon assets etc. And I didn't push a button other than "proceed".

No sarcasm needed.

Look Dredd, FPG is not alone in this style of gameplay but something is not optimum when a game requires a player to do nothing. As a playtester myself I've pulled apart many a scen for this exact same thing, even critiqued an entire title.

FPG has its heart in the right place just not its execution. So much chrome and potential minutae for a war gamer to sink his or her teeth into but for what reason? It's like Talonsoft's Battle of Britain where the player gives orders and does nothing for an eternity thereafter, except in that title, the player at least needs to give orders - some quite involved. Not here. The "Q" Quick (not quit - folks) key is the only thing in my play sittings that has served as a saviour.

Sorry but my opinion based on play.



JudgeDredd -> RE: Not turning out as I thought (2/21/2005 2:50:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker
Look Dredd, FPG is not alone in this style of gameplay but something is not optimum when a game requires a player to do nothing


I wasn't commenting on your experience of the gameplay, as these have been pointed out and Rob is currently, and will be into the future, I believe, changing AI behaviour....

My posts were purely on the sound issue you raised...but we'll have to agree to differ...obviously a case of swings and roundabouts



Adam Parker -> RE: Not turning out as I thought (2/21/2005 3:21:30 PM)

Peace Dredd and know it really saddens me to report negatively on any game especially understanding that so much work and disruption to life has gone into it.

Look folks, the price point of FPG is fairly reasonable compared to other Matrix titles so if you have the spare cash it's worth an exploration maybe for human-human play at this stage.

Capn D I think the solution to the design rests with its basic premise: giving players a taste of what it's like not to be omnipotent in command for once. But as I mentioned when the game rests on limited intel but a player can always know where his/her forces are at any given time and losses incurred/taken as they eventuate, this premise is really being defeated.

So talking purely blue-sky - brainstorming if you like, without making this game a type of battleship where the battlefield and its contents friend or foe become hidden from turn to turn unless recon/intel provides otherwise, the answer may lay with returning some operational control back to the player.

How to achieve this in a we-go set-up with variable turn lengths is something I'll need to sleep on if at all. For it's midnight Down Under and time to remember that this is a hobby, with fun its object. And as Dredd say's one thing for one and something else for another.

That said, for now I personally would like to see:

1. The player able to manage direct and indrect fire including opportunity/overwatch fire events.
2. Tools facilitating ambush planning and execution.
3. Paths showing a firing unit to target unless the firer is hidden to the player and fire doesn't reveal its presence.
4. Paths showing a unit's persistent movement during a turn.
5. A more subdued highlighting of the map allowing range/LOS features etc to remain on map unobtrusively during play.
6. A stack pop-up dialog allowing selection of units rather than rotating through the stack.
7. An on-unit flag showing that an order has already been assigned that phase.
8. Nationality based combat and movement doctrines as applicable to the era.
9. The requirement for pre-planning an mass of Soviet artillery missions.

How to fit points 1 and 2 however into the current design is the dilemma. Obviously this degree of player control was never intended. Possibly then the other points may compensate. That and/or really taking away some further areas of player ominpotence such as accurately knowing the whereabouts of his/her forces at all times as I've mentioned. Is it desireable that without a sitrep and an in-command HQ to report to, that a player not always know the actual position and even existence of his/her units?

Happy gaming all,
Adam.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Not turning out as I thought (2/21/2005 4:09:42 PM)

Adam,

Not discussing your feature request as every designer has his own view of how the game should be. Most of the issues you report in your earlier post, which disappointed you, have already been addressed in some fashion in work on the first update, which will be out early this week, possibly as early as tonight. Please take another look through once you've tried 1.01.

Regards,

- Erik



ioticus -> RE: Not turning out as I thought (2/21/2005 8:23:18 PM)

Adam,

Could you please report back after trying the 1.01 patch and let us know if the single player game is a whole lot better? I've been holding off buying it for AI reasons. Thanks.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Not turning out as I thought (2/21/2005 9:11:07 PM)

Ioticus,

1.01 improves some AI issues, but FYI 1.02 is going to focus on some AI improvements.

Regards,

- Erik



CapnDarwin -> RE: Not turning out as I thought (2/21/2005 9:49:17 PM)

Adam,

You have some interesting points.

1. The player able to manage direct and indrect fire including opportunity/overwatch fire events.
2. Tools facilitating ambush planning and execution.
3. Paths showing a firing unit to target unless the firer is hidden to the player and fire doesn't reveal its presence.
4. Paths showing a unit's persistent movement during a turn.
5. A more subdued highlighting of the map allowing range/LOS features etc to remain on map unobtrusively during play.
6. A stack pop-up dialog allowing selection of units rather than rotating through the stack.
7. An on-unit flag showing that an order has already been assigned that phase.
8. Nationality based combat and movement doctrines as applicable to the era.
9. The requirement for pre-planning an mass of Soviet artillery missions.

How to fit points 1 and 2 however into the current design is the dilemma. Obviously this degree of player control was never intended. Possibly then the other points may compensate. That and/or really taking away some further areas of player ominpotence such as accurately knowing the whereabouts of his/her forces at all times as I've mentioned. Is it desireable that without a sitrep and an in-command HQ to report to, that a player not always know the actual position and even existence of his/her units?

I agree with your assessment of points 1 and 2. The game scale is too large for that kind of Combat Mission style mechanics. To me an ambush still occurs in FPG when units pop into view and you get basically an open round of shots.
3. I would like to have sight lines going from my unit to spotted targets. From there perhaps the player could assign target priority.
4. There is a setting to show waypoints during resolution or are you looking for the arrows thing you get when you hit the P key to procede?
5. Might be possible for the Dev's to add a dot or x in each visible square of an acting unit.
6. I like this idea. Would be nice for group assignmnets like SOP too.
7. Like 5, perhaps a dot on each counter with a new/existing turn order.
8. Given the scale and detail level of combat, I think this falls into the same bim as 1 and 2.
9. I think you are right on this. It would be nice to have set target points for arty in the scenarios. This would allow for WP forces to bombard suspected NATO defensive points in the battle area. Might still be tricky for the AI to use unless built in to scenerio.

I hope the patches address enough of your points for you to enjoy it.

S!

Cap'n D



Adam Parker -> RE: Not turning out as I thought (2/22/2005 12:32:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

I agree with your assessment of points 1 and 2. The game scale is too large for that kind of Combat Mission style mechanics.


Funnily I've never had the patience to give Combat Mission its due and it is such a smoothly playing game - but the real issue with FPG for me has been maintaining the feel of my own involvement as turns are planned and executed. Hence allowing a player to fire his own companies and platoons at targets was one option but this of course wouldn't then be "we-go". So maybe on this, it's not so much a scale issue rather than a paradigm one.

quote:


3. I would like to have sight lines going from my unit to spotted targets. From there perhaps the player could assign target priority.


That too would be good indeed. For me it's also working out who has just fired at who! (whom?) [:'(]

quote:


4. There is a setting to show waypoints during resolution or are you looking for the arrows thing you get when you hit the P key to procede?


I love the "show all waypoints" feature, it's just a shame that it turns off after each execution phase - but games like some in the HPS series have this turn-by-turn re-toggle necessity (plus the need to set auto-scrolling on installation for that matter!) too. I'd like to see more of a natural looking unit movement from square to square, so the thought that maybe a series of arrows like you say or lines tracing each unit's movement in a turn would help maintain the flow of who is moving and from where. Another poster suggested a slidding movement from square to square. I second this too.

For my points 8 and 9, they really relate to making the command experience more nationality driven than present. The designer has already achieved some of this with his electronic warfare/limited order mechanism in that Pact HQ's can have a severely limited order capacity compared with NATO under extreme cases - 2 orders per turn max I've seen!

But what about "really" showing how inflexible or given one's taste brilliant (?) Soviet era doctrine was? Wasn't there a requirement for Soviet mass rather than being able to distribute a Regiment widely across a map? Wasn't artillery also based on the precept of concentration and pre-planning? Didn't an Operational Maneuver Group differ from a line regiment? If so these two features could be reflected more greatly in a game where command and doctrine are its major parts. Then again, this could mean that Soviet command may at times become highly boring! But it may also make for a truer Soviet AI.

One last wish or change I'd recommend is the way reinforcements arrive on map. Rather than starting at a map edge which I'd see as logical, I've seen reinforcements pop up in the middle of a side's zone! What's the reason for this, why can't players bring forces into play at the edge where they would logically appear? I think it's the 2nd British scenario where the Soviet player starts with a limited mech/recon force and on turn 2 "voila" Russian tanks and arty appear squarely in the centre of his area of the map! Thanks for the extra punch - but how did it get there?

Anyway, I'll most definitely see how Patch 1 plays.

One thing I must say, is that I am a definite fan of Matrix's Digital Download service. Sure I have broadband and can take advantage of its benefits but having a game immediately on paying, without the need to insert a disc and therefore find it playable at the drop of a hat, makes experimenting with patches and trying a game again to see if it can grow on me, so much more easier.

Adam.



John21b -> RE: Not turning out as I thought (2/22/2005 3:47:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

But what about "really" showing how inflexible or given one's taste brilliant (?) Soviet era doctrine was? Wasn't there a requirement for Soviet mass rather than being able to distribute a Regiment widely across a map? Wasn't artillery also based on the precept of concentration and pre-planning? Didn't an Operational Maneuver Group differ from a line regiment? If so these two features could be reflected more greatly in a game where command and doctrine are its major parts. Then again, this could mean that Soviet command may at times become highly boring! But it may also make for a truer Soviet AI.



This is a general misconception about Soviet Doctrine. Rob's game actually pulls it off right. At the Company and Platoon level the system was very lock step. At every level above this leeway became much greater. The Soviets valued Tactical and operation art very much, it was just practiced a couple levels up from the Western militaries. They were more then capable when it came to flanking etc. All of which the player can do in the game.

In Arty they did pre-plan heavly, would be nice to be able to (during the pregame setup)to have large concentrated barages available.

OMG's were usually Div + sized groups, they were ment to strike hard and drive very deep into the enemies Corps and Army level rear areas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker


One last wish or change I'd recommend is the way reinforcements arrive on map. Rather than starting at a map edge which I'd see as logical, I've seen reinforcements pop up in the middle of a side's zone! What's the reason for this, why can't players bring forces into play at the edge where they would logically appear? I think it's the 2nd British scenario where the Soviet player starts with a limited mech/recon force and on turn 2 "voila" Russian tanks and arty appear squarely in the centre of his area of the map! Thanks for the extra punch - but how did it get there?

Adam.


I would agree with the reinforcement comment above, have not played game with reinforcements yet, had not noticed.



Adam Parker -> RE: Not turning out as I thought (2/22/2005 4:05:09 AM)

Thanks John, that's an interesting insight. I would not like to arbitrarily handicap a side. Only where doctrine trully would have reflected it in a significant manner. I remember an article in the "General" for Avalon Hill's MBT asking why people hate playing the Soviets because of their doctrinal restrictions. Something like "hey don't fret - the Soviets can be fun"! [:D]

Seems like there's a lot on the designer's plate right now in fixing bugs, making changes and releasing the first patch.

I've pretty much exhausted things I've come across so far that maybe others haven't. So for now I'll hang back and see what comes.

Like I said the good thing about Digital Download is the game's always there with a click to start it whenever the changes fall due.



Tbird3 -> RE: Not turning out as I thought (2/23/2005 8:26:46 PM)

Good discussion. The problem that I see is trying to find that magical combination that feels "real" versus being bogged down into the painful details and finally actually being fun to play. Adam, even in your first post on this thread you speak about two opposites. First you have issues with the ability of knowing accurate info on your units. Then you turn around and want to direct the fire of your platoons and companies! Don't get me wrong, I feel that way occassionally too, however, I assure you that the opportunity that the battalion/regimental/brigade commander would be directing platoon and company fire would be extremely rare. On rare occassions a battalion commander might, just might, have a battalion sized engagement area where he might initiate fires.

Second of all, as is posted throughout these threads is the issue of the AI. It is weak. However, the PBEM feature is so easy to use I have hard time imagining anyone spending a long period playing the AI. A human opponent gives such a radical change to the nature of play it is unbelieveable. AI has been the bane of all computer designers since the first computer game. I do hope there are improvements but I doubt that it will ever make the same smart and stupid decisions that a human will. [:)]

Adam, don't get me wrong. You have made many valid points that deserve attention. I am just a bit nervous when people start talking about making significant "system" changes with a game. The current game system is smooth, playable, and has some of the challenges of real combat. My favorite analogy is the old Avalon Hill squad leader game. The first three scenearios of the original squad leader game were the most elegant, beautiful, playable board wargame design that I have ever played. By the time they published the advanced squad leader design it took someone about 20 hours and a PHD to do a single move. [:D]

Thanks for the insight, I appreciate it. I really do. It makes me look at FPG with a different view and I hope with continued comments and concerns from the players that Matrix will continue to hone the gap of playability, realism, and fun.

Regards,

Tbird3



Adam Parker -> RE: Not turning out as I thought (2/23/2005 11:59:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tbird3

The problem that I see is trying to find that magical combination that feels "real" versus being bogged down into the painful details and finally actually being fun to play. Adam, even in your first post on this thread you speak about two opposites. First you have issues with the ability of knowing accurate info on your units. Then you turn around and want to direct the fire of your platoons and companies!... Thanks for the insight, I appreciate it. I really do.


Thanks Tbird. Kudos to Matrix for allowing any debate in the first place. Actually the above contradiction was intended. You see to me it's all about playability and immersing the player.

FGP has the contradiction imo of requiring players to risk having units send in status reports as a central game theme. But whether they do or not, the player always knows where his/her units are on the map. Wouldn't these positions especially in the case of movements due to doctrine or failed orders need to be radioed in for HQ's to place them on their charts? Wouldn't this then impact who can subsequently receive orders, what those orders could even be and when?

Taking this knowledge away from players imho then, would add to playability and the overall anti-omnipotence stance the game is attempting to convey. FGP then, becomes a game of players furiously working out not only what they have but where they are turn-turn. Very immersive, fog of war and command-oriented. Very anti-god's eye view. A trully benchmark war gaming challenge.

However, if things are to stay the way they are, then imho right now the game is very much one of just watching the AI move your own units and fight them - always known and always in view. To add playability then, I'd like more control over the combat side of things, not merely initial maneuver. What about over-riding doctrine movement shifts as they occur too?

But I can hear people replying "hey you shouldn't be able to over-ride doctrine movement shifts as you shouldn't have control over this unit behaviour". Why? "Because you aren't meant to know where these units are". But we do and if so, a commander should be able to demand "hold your ground your orders have changed!"

As Erik said, design decisions are the realm of the designer, so these thoughts and this thread as you say, are sparked solely from my own perceptions and I too appreciate you seeing the "spirit" behind them.

Whilst not a personal jibe in my first post to SimCan at all, it was just that on firing the game up, I had a sluggishly scrolling game that felt very "DOS" or retro owing to some also really curious Pact sounds and what I call "jerky" or maybe better to say, "abrupt" - "non smooth" on-map unit movement. Why no "guides" showing who was firing at who as many other games have by now already achieved? Why almost non-opaque, white map highlighting of movement spans etc? Why non-peristent HQ subordinate unit highlights etc that need to be swtiched on every turn?

Adam.



TheHellPatrol -> RE: Not turning out as I thought (2/24/2005 12:15:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

Whilst not a personal jibe in my first post to SimCan at all, it was just that on firing the game up, I had a sluggishly scrolling game that felt very "DOS" or retro owing to some also really curious Pact sounds and what I call "jerky" or maybe better to say, "abrupt" - "non smooth" on-map unit movement.

Adam.

I agree with your point as i had much the same opinion at first. What is not intuitive is the way the preferences are described, i'll be damned if i can remember them now even though i have found the settings that i am comfortable with[8|]. The scrolling and game speed can be changed to a) scroll much smoother and quicker and b) move along at a quicker pace (per your setting preference) more like BiN plays ie: unit movement. After some trial and error, mostly error[;)], i changed the "per second" this and the "second interval" that to make the game flow/scroll more along the lines i am accustomed to. IMHO, being that the game was designed with "ease of play" in mind, i would have gone with a standard scroll/gameplay "slider" eg: slow-medium-fast etc. To me that was my biggest hurdle in getting into the flow, now the mouse cursor goes where i want it when i expect it and the game plays out at speed more to my liking...ADD[X(][;)].



Adam Parker -> Playability idea (2/24/2005 5:46:09 AM)

Idea coming [;)] [>:]

In my last play-sitting, NATO AI artillery plastered my highest HQ and I actually received a message pop-up along the lines: "Your highest HQ - that is YOU - has been eliminated".

That was cool. And slightly disturbing! Given the scale and command focus, what do people say to having a scenario end immediately on this happening?

With the requirement to keep HQ's within range and radio detection low, would kinda add to the sweat in the pants feel. Could you imagine plotting blind arty using deductive reasoning, to surprisingly pick off a side's prime HQ for a "critical kill" win?

Who mentioned elan in that other post [;)]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.78125