Patrick Ward wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2024 11:28 am
RVallant wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2024 7:53 pm
They binned Pacific have they?
What, the whole Pacific?!
LOL No.
We cancelled one Pacific project because the navel aspect it relied on couldn't be made good enough to sell.
No where have we said we're not going to make other Pacific DLC.
P
I've played Strategy Games for decades. A number of them had 'Naval' actions in them. So whatever slitherine intended for how to "display-portray" these 'Naval-Aspects'...Stop and Now consider!... if developing a 'Naval-Presentation' is beyond the present or current capabilities of Developers at this time... or too insurmountable for the Game designers... then
'Scale those ambitions down!"... we do not require the...
"Crème de la Crème"... or
the 'Best Type' of a particular thing!. Just 'Make it Workable'.
:Scaling Down:.. .
what does that really imply???.
~~~Less attention to hyper-design of Ships... instead!... use more basic_ less detailed graphics for Ships. If as an added alternative... give the "Option" to have the Ships full-glory revealed in a separate independent still-shot graphics view... for the player to mull-over... if they really want to see what it really looks like.
~~~Simpler Combat results... avoid complex damage assessment combat results on Ships.
~~~Have the "Fleet" represented by a "Single-Icon"... but!...when engaged with enemy forces... then have the entire Fleet-Fleets displayed.,, for both sides.
~~~If in the case of "Aircraft-Carriers"... before one launches an "Air-Mission"... go "Deluxe" on then revealing the Carrier separately on the screen to help immerse the player into the current situation to assist in the assessing and allocating of the respective aircraft needed for the upcoming mission... this will help in making more of
"a feel of realism" for the player.