First Commander - Europe at War Screenshot!

currycook · Post by **currycook** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 2:56 am

I have to say I like the hexes. I might just be an old wargamer but I think the hexes sure make it look nice.

vveedd · Post by **vveedd** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:09 pm

Looking good

firepowerjohan · Post by **firepowerjohan** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:41 pm

We ought to inform you guys on forum that the real map I am running in the game looks even better and crisper than this online screenshot since it does not have the compression of the images displayed here on the Internet!

pompousdivinus · Post by **pompousdivinus** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:24 pm

Map looks ok for a board game, excellent for a computer game. I suppose there will be borders in the end ? Counters...er....units...look good (I agree there should be no facing) but I ll play with NATO symbols anyway.
One thing:
What is that imense"Ardennes forest" that covers half of Northern Germany up to the river Weser ? I mean, obviouly it is a forest but why is it located right there ? In other words: it shouldnt extend that far to the east.
Another thing:
why not using a street grid when displaying a major (not capital) city. TMM this looks better than white dots. BTW if I get the scale right the huge industrial rhine area should be representd with more than one dot (city grid) anyway since it represents more than half a dozen cities not really separated from each other.

firepowerjohan · Post by **firepowerjohan** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 5:30 pm

The terrain of the map is representative, but the locations of resources (city, capital, mines, ports, ...) are just a sample and will be (and is already) changed in future versions.

dulak · Post by **dulak** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 7:03 pm

iainmcneil wrote:
joe98 wrote:I have become used to better artwork in wargames so perhaps it could be tweaked a bit to enhance the ambiance.
Everything ecept the map is placeholder As mentioned above, the units, icons, UI etc have all been dropped in quickly to show how it could look.

Please tell me where you've seen a better map in a wargame!

I can't ...
Awesome looking map ... I look at that and it makes me think I am re-living playing a grandscale WWII game with some friends 20+ years ago (table top paper map game with the accompanying soda and chips

I like the counters; to the point and looks good on that map

direwolf · Post by **direwolf** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 6:18 pm

Hi All,

Map looks great...and i like the unit icons just as they are. Right now i'm drooling because this looks reminiscent of Panzer General and the old SSI games. With improved gameplay and graphics...hmm...wonder if my wife will move...maybe even out of country so i can play undisturbed.

Cheers,
DW

doublethink · Post by **doublethink** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:12 am

hi guys, thanks for all the compliments on the map. i have to say that i get a kick out of all the comparisons to old board games and the old'ish computer games which they spawned. i grew up playing those games and they're still some of my favourites. i'll do my best to match that quality.

cheers, boris

honch · Post by **honch** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:20 pm

New poster here guys, straight from the SC2 forums. Hello to all of the SC2 regulars.

Wow, what a beautiful map, reminds me of the old SSP European Theater of Operations boardgame, a classic.

More terrain types, smoking factories, waves, I think a classic computer wargame is in the works here, especially if the modability is close to that of SC2.

I am a BIG modder of SC2 and I think that is its saving grace, along with the fact that the developer is so approachable, something you guys have already proven to be as well. The SC2 AI is atrocious and game play/features are only average.

Therefore, if Commander at War can give us good game play, a decent AI and good modability, it will be a winner.

The division level map size, oil feature and individual commanders are all really nice features.

I think that the river widths could be taken down a notch as they are very thick.

Besides that, lookin' good!

James Taylor · Post by **James Taylor** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:48 pm

Good to see you here Honch.

Looking at the map, there seems to be the subtle initiation of a road and rail infrastructure. Haven't seen or perhaps I missed the explanation of the significance of this feature.

Have any game mechanics been defined to date on the features of this infrastructure?

firepowerjohan · Post by **firepowerjohan** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:13 pm

seamonkey wrote:Good to see you here Honch.

Looking at the map, there seems to be the subtle initiation of a road and rail infrastructure. Haven't seen or perhaps I missed the explanation of the significance of this feature.

Have any game mechanics been defined to date on the features of this infrastructure?

Roads and infrastructure are there purely for the visuals, but there will be a abstracted railroad capacity in the enabling long distance movements of units. After using up the railroad capacity, further rail movments will cost production points so it should be avoided.

Furthermore, there is a maximum distance (ofcourse in the script to be modded) of railroad movement too meaning you cannot counter Allied boats on D-Day with a instant move of a doussin units from deep Russia!

James Taylor · Post by **James Taylor** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:10 am

I understand this scale may not be supportive to this suggestion, also I would have need of the era's actual infrastructure for basis, but what if the code would allow, in ideal weather conditions, the reduced movement cost for mechanized units through difficult terrain.

Now I'm not advocating the movement of numerous units to benefit from the road bonus, perhaps only one or two, proceeding in a single direction.

This feature would simulate a road structure beneficial to mobile type units and would demand that opponents pay particular attention to such networks in denying them for quick access. As an added feature, air units would be allowed to interdict/intercept with a bonus attack factor when targeting a unit deployed on or using road movement.

SMK-at-work · Post by **SMK-at-work** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:15 am

Abstracted rail /strategic movement can certainly work, but one useful restraint on it is to limit the capacity of individual hexes to carry it out. Eg a single hex can only handle a certain number of units - so as to stop people from sending a whole army to a small sector, or to send substantial reinforcements or withdrawals thought a bottleneck for example.

This can help make rail a little more realistic - eg mountain hexes can have a low capacity, cities can have much higher capacity, etc.

jon_j_rambo · Post by **jon_j_rambo** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:29 am

All true wargamers love railroads! This is an very interesting addition, I'm glad Johan is taking a serious look at it. Starting with an abstract look is a great idea. SO & SM are bringing up some great points. What areas realistically are supportable by rail? How many units can use the rail? All true Americans love railroads. Every play Robberbarron type games?

I'm going to keep an eye on this possible feature,
-Legend

uxbridge · Post by **uxbridge** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:18 am

To add to Stalins suggestion, some hexes should not have railraod capacity at all; most of North Africa for instance. If you don't have the ambition to limit movement by limiting the "travel-through capacity" of each hex as he suggests, at least make some hexes "rail prohibitive" (modable). This way one can create entire areas without rail capacity. It would also be possible to create chains of non passable hexes, like necklaces, to force passing units to detrain severel times. Of course, if Stalins suggestion with hex limits is to be implemented, this would work fine as well.

Another thing I would like, is that supplied units that don't enter or exit ZoCs for their entire movement could have a double movement rate, or at least a movement bonus. This would simulate semi-strategic marsches where no time is lost in disengaging and fighting. In many games with a monthly scale, it is ridiculous to see units walking for half a year in non-rail areas where it would be much quicker in reality. Fron Tripoli to el Alamein would be a good such example.

firepowerjohan · Post by **firepowerjohan** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:54 am

I am glad to say mosty of your suggestions are already considered in game.

The africa issue:
Africa will not have railrod capacity since they are not connected to the Major Nation capitals. You need maximum supply in order to move by railroad, which units in Africa will not have.

Area limits:
Yes, there is a limit of one unit per city/fortress surrounding while Capital hees have unlimited capacity.

Example:
USSR can move 7 units to the Moscow surroundings (in moscow and the 6 adjacent hexes) while they can only move unit per turn to for instance Smolensk.