First impressions/first bug reports

[comradep]

First of all, I'm happy to be able to help Slitherine test this game. It's been almost a year since I was actively playing Great Battles Medieval, so it's nice to play a Slitherine title again.

- First impressions. What were your impression after 30 seconds, 5 minutes, 15 minutes and an hour. If you could write these down and post them to the forum it would be very useful.

It has a distinct PG feel. I'm very happy that artillery can now move and fire. Anyone familiar with the *insert name here* General games should be able to jump right in. I noticed it has the PG Forever feature of non-random battle results for attacks in sequence (they'll always have the same result if the same units are used).

- Performance. Is the game too slow on your PC? If yes, what problems exactly you experience, and what system configuration do you have?

It runs fine, no problems thus far.

- Map graphics: the terrain map and the units. What did you like or not like. What could be improved?

The map looks nice and the unit graphics look good but I'd prefer units becoming shaded (greyed out) when they can no longer perform an action rather than have a red dash through their strength indicator. At first, I thought that meant the unit was disrupted or something.

Bug 1: when I placed a bridging engineer unit on a river, attacked another unit with it and hit end turn, the unit had vanished. Loading an earlier save restored the unit to the map.

- Usability and UI of the main screen. Is it intuitively clear how to control the game? Is the UI convenient? Do you like the existing mouse interface, or would you prefer a different one? What useful information do you miss in the UI sidebar or the main map view?


Bug 2: The strategic map gives a black screen with the usual interface around when I click on the toggle button. I can move the mouse across that black screen and unit information will pop up if the mouse seems to be over a hex with a unit in it (even though I can't see it), but I can't actually see the map. If I zoom out to the strategic map with the mousewheel, everything works fine.

A partial screenshot: http://img715.imageshack.us/i/issue2i.jpg

The text in the purchase unit screen also seems to be aligned too far to the top, at least in my game.

http://img262.imageshack.us/i/issue1.jpg

I might be missing it, but I can't get a unit information screen to appear when selecting units. It could be that it isn't implented yet.

The button with a targeting reticule and an armoured vehicle, in the lower right of the upper part of the interface, has no roll-over pop-up explaining its function.

- Game rules. Please note that at this point game rules are not final. We are still thinking about some aspects, and we'll change and tweak some things as we test the game. However, any opinions on what you see in the game now, and what could be improved, are very much welcome.

I'd like to be able to buy units in the initial setup phase. Most later PG series games or clones allowed that. I might also be missing something, but it doesn't seem to be possible.

- Tutorial campaign. The first beta only includes the six tutorial scenarios and the tutorial campaign. When complete this will have prompts to aid the user but it would be good if we knew which areas of the game needed the most helpers and prompts so can you tell us which parts you did not understand so we can focus on explaining those.

Instead of in-game prompts, I'd advise to create a walkthrough with screenshots giving a blow by blow account of how to win the first two-three missions and with an addendum of how features of later missions work (displaying the embarking, moving of a unit and the actual drop for a para drop, for example).

More impressions and probably bug reports will follow.

[lordzimoa]

Great first feedback here, keep it coming!

Concerning the UI and missing functions, most menu`s are still placeholder and temporarily solutions, so most UI is still in progress. Like the strategic map, the purchase screens, the library, the scenario and campaign menu, the briefings, unit panel and stat panel, the minimap, etc... all will be replaced over time by final art. Same for tooltips and the text here on the text panel:

http://img262.imageshack.us/i/issue1.jpg

They will be replaced by icons, but again, we are still working and re-working most UI. Just that you all know it is quite a dull looking bear-bone game at the moment.

[comradep]

In all honesty, I think the interface looks quite good even at this point.

One thing that I forgot to mention: I also like that truck mounted units can capture victory locations, that wasn't possible in some PG titles.

Being able to attack after moving is also really nice.

All in all, the game addresses what I view as some of PG's flaws quite nicely.

[Rudankort]

Great first feedback, thx!

The map looks nice and the unit graphics look good but I'd prefer units becoming shaded (greyed out) when they can no longer perform an action rather than have a red dash through their strength indicator. At first, I thought that meant the unit was disrupted or something.

Yeah, we'll replace those red lines with something more suitable.

Bug 1: when I placed a bridging engineer unit on a river, attacked another unit with it and hit end turn, the unit had vanished. Loading an earlier save restored the unit to the map.

This is certainly strange. Could it be that the engineer was killed in combat? Units on rivers are very vulnerable, both on attack and defense.

Bug 2: The strategic map gives a black screen with the usual interface around when I click on the toggle button. I can move the mouse across that black screen and unit information will pop up if the mouse seems to be over a hex with a unit in it (even though I can't see it), but I can't actually see the map. If I zoom out to the strategic map with the mousewheel, everything works fine.

So you have discovered zooming with mouse wheel easily. Good. I'm still undecided if we need any on-screen controls for zooming, or just the wheel. But it is not a strategic map, it is just normal map made 2 times smaller. We need the strategic map to fit fully on the screen, and I'm still undecided what kind graphics we should use - NATO symbols, or some abstract unit icons etc. Any opinions on this are welcome. This is the reason why the strategic map is not implemented yet.

I might be missing it, but I can't get a unit information screen to appear when selecting units. It could be that it isn't implented yet.

Indeed, a full-blown unit screen is not implemented yet. But you can already see unit stats if you toggle the stats panel on. This is done using "i" button.

The button with a targeting reticule and an armoured vehicle, in the lower right of the upper part of the interface, has no roll-over pop-up explaining its function.

This button is a placeholder, because its image and function will depend on the unit selected. Basically, it will toggle unit type, much like you toggle organic transport on and off. So for example, you will be able to togge 8.8mm FlaK to 8.8mm PaK and vice versa.

I'd like to be able to buy units in the initial setup phase. Most later PG series games or clones allowed that. I might also be missing something, but it doesn't seem to be possible.

Yes, purchase between missions will by all means be implemented. If we don't include it by the end of beta program, feel free kick me hard and demand this feature.

[comradep]

A pre-battle HQ screen that some *...* General games had, like Pacific General, with an overview of available core and non-core units and the option to upgrade them or give them replacements would also be nice.

[Rudankort]

A pre-battle HQ screen that some *...* General games had, like Pacific General, with an overview of available core and non-core units and the option to upgrade them or give them replacements would also be nice.

+1 vote for the intermission screen. Any other opinions on this? Do we need an intermission screen in the game?

[Happycat]

A pre-battle HQ screen that some *...* General games had, like Pacific General, with an overview of available core and non-core units and the option to upgrade them or give them replacements would also be nice.

+1 vote for the intermission screen. Any other opinions on this? Do we need an intermission screen in the game?

Make it two votes

[Rudankort]

Make it two votes

Done.

[Kerensky]

Complete agreement over the need for being able to buy units during deployment and the need for an 'intermission' screen.

[comradep]

I noticed that the defender can still create walls of cheap units near cities to slow down the attacker, one of the primary problems of the PG series and also the main reason why I stopped playing PG Forever.

[Kerensky]

Did you find that out playing impossible mode? That's where I noticed it. I thought overrun was a fun and relatively effective counter to massed cheap units, but that's just one of several great additions Pg2 added that aren't in PzC (yet I hope).

[comradep]

In some scenarios in PG2, my tank units didn't actually engage in any real battle where they could be fired at, as you could weaken units with infantry, tactical bombers or artillery and just overrun everything with some 15 strength tank unit. It was impossible to overrun 10 strength units, but 9 strength units were no problem so even a scratch could doom a unit. That's also one of reasons why the later scenarios in PG2 campaigns could become rather easy. The last few turns were usually spend racing assault engineers and artillery to cities that you were bombing with two tactical bomber units each turn (sometimes killing the defenders before your infantry got there).

[IainMcNeil]

To avoid walls of cheap units should we have a manpower resource of some sort as well as the prestige? This would rise automatically each turn but limit the number of units built?

Maybe newly built units have serious combat penalties, or take double casualties to prevent them being used to fill the front line? Maybe new units cannot be placed next to enemy units?

Maybe attacking units should be allowed to follow up in to a tile vacated by the enemy due to retreating or dying, even if it has moved to claim, allowing cities to be put under pressure and grab tiles that are vacated more easily?

[dgold]

To avoid walls of cheap units should we have a manpower resource of some sort as well as the prestige? This would rise automatically each turn but limit the number of units built?

Maybe newly built units have serious combat penalties, or take double casualties to prevent them being used to fill the front line? Maybe new units cannot be placed next to enemy units?

Maybe attacking units should be allowed to follow up in to a tile vacated by the enemy due to retreating or dying, even if it has moved to claim, allowing cities to be put under pressure and grab tiles that are vacated more easily?

I vote for these of Iain's suggestions:

Do not allow new units to be placed next to enemy units.

Allow attacking units a free move into the target hex vacated by the defender due to elimination or retreat, even if the attacker unit has already moved before attacking.

[Happycat]

To avoid walls of cheap units should we have a manpower resource of some sort as well as the prestige? This would rise automatically each turn but limit the number of units built?

Maybe newly built units have serious combat penalties, or take double casualties to prevent them being used to fill the front line? Maybe new units cannot be placed next to enemy units?

Maybe attacking units should be allowed to follow up in to a tile vacated by the enemy due to retreating or dying, even if it has moved to claim, allowing cities to be put under pressure and grab tiles that are vacated more easily?

I vote for these of Iain's suggestions:

Do not allow new units to be placed next to enemy units.

Allow attacking units a free move into the target hex vacated by the defender due to elimination or retreat, even if the attacker unit has already moved before attacking.

I second that motion!

[boredatwork]

I'm not necessarily sure if I like the idea of capping reinforcements - the AI being able to dump prestige into loads of units was what kept it at least marginally challenging.

I'm not sure what the best fix to prevent blobs of units but perhaps treating the causes rather than the symptom might be more effective? Specifically if you don't want the AI to bunch up around objectives then give it compelling reasons why it should be elsewhere.

- Add additional "optional objectives" or something that are worth the AI dispersing his resources to defend, but only need to be attacked by players looking for extra challenge (maybe for cosmetic medals or a prototype unit or "achievement" or something) - in otherwords give more things for the AI to defend

- I used to play an early 90s computer wargame called Perfect General which was had scenarios where the enemy would get reinforcements from the flanks of the map - keeping things challenging without necessarilly hordes of units around the objective. It made for interesting choices how much to leave guarding the flanks versus shoving forward.

In most PG scenarios you had enough units to stretch from one side of the map to another keeping a continuous front. Once your front rolled past an area you never needed to worry about security or your flanks. Maybe make the map slightly wider and allow the AI to spawn units from a random spot on the "side" of the battlefield. You could get a message "Russian counterattack near Minsk!!" which would allow you to redeploy units to counter.

This would probably benefit several ways - it would keep large core forces busier as part of the strength would have to be assigned to watch flanks; the defenses on the objective wouldn't need to be so massive given the reduction in strength attacking them. It would allow SOME defensive play in what would otherwise be purely offensive scenarios (adding value to AT and AD units).


Partisans could also spawn and require dealing with.

And it would make use of the nifty railroad movement by having to shuffle to security forces from one side of the map to another quickly.

And lastly it could help with balance - to counter large experience core forces rather than making the blob of units defending the objective bigger, instead scale the size or frequency of the counter attacks.

- Only have a handfull of new unit producing cities and force the computer to use the nifty rail movement to move units to the front line rather than have units spawn directly around the objectives.

[Kerensky]

- Only have a handfull of new unit producing cities and force the computer to use the nifty rail movement to move units to the front line rather than have units spawn directly around the objectives.

I'm starting to feel like a broken record here, but Green Supply Hexes from Panzer General 2 anyone?
I was going to bring this up, but bored pretty much said what I was going to.

You solve the problem of instant in your face mass spawning and you make the new rail transport more useful. If you buy masses of junk there won't be enough rail transport to move all of it to the front, making it a more attractive option to buy quality over quantity.

Plus all this is good for the AI, but also if this game is going to get anywhere in multiplayer, it's going to need mechanics that break tactics such as massing the cheapest possible unit.


Overrun could also be tweaked to be less potent. You could actually overrun a full 10 strength unit by the way, but it was usually something like an artillery unit in transport or SP arty gun sitting on a river.
So, overrun could be change to only work against units with strength of 5 or under, so you really need to soften up targets, not just ping them once, or overrun consumes double ammo. You won't be able to smash everything in sight when you burn through ammo that fast, but it should be a good deterrent to massing cheap units.

[Rudankort]

I vote for these of Iain's suggestions:

Do not allow new units to be placed next to enemy units.

Allow attacking units a free move into the target hex vacated by the defender due to elimination or retreat, even if the attacker unit has already moved before attacking.

We already have a rule that new units cannot be purchased in a city blocked by enemy units, and I don't see any reason to allow "block" the city from one more hex away. I'm also not particularly fond of the second rule. I don't want the attacker to move his best unit next to a city, kill/push out the defender and occupy the city - all in one move. If you want to attack that fast, bring in more units.

My view of the situation in like this: the defender is free to use many cheap weak units, or few strong units, or any mix of them - this will only add to game variety. What we don't want is a horde of units appearing instantly right in front of you, because it is bad for gameplay. It is ok if a horde of units is amassed in the course of e. g. 6 turns - the player is supposed to do recon and prepare for such situations. But it is not ok if this happens instantly.

There are two easy ways to solve this problem, and they can be combined: a) limit the cities which can produce units, b) limit the number of units a city can produce in one turn. I tend to prefer the second approach. One one hand, each unit has just one move per turn, so why cities should have more "moves"? In many ways placing a unit on the map is an action similar to moving a unit - new unit spots the map, can block enemy cities and units, projects ZOC etc. So, it should not be possible to do several place actions in one city in a single turn. On the other hand, you still can protect your cities, even remote ones, relatively easily, as long as you have resources for that. So, the attacker cannot expect remote cities to be an easy prey, he may be in for surprises there.

Limiting the number of cities which can actually produce something is of course a possibility, but on certain maps this can mean that many cities will never get any defenders, unless they are placed there by scenario designer. If I miss any important advantages of this scheme, please by all means let me know about them.

[IainMcNeil]

Limiting cities to produce one unit per turn is a nice idea.

Giving incentives to form a battle lines instead of clumping around cities would be good but not sure how to do that. It would need a game play mechanic to reward it and the AI to work out it needs to do it. This is probably too much change at this stage.

[Rudankort]

Giving incentives to form a battle lines instead of clumping around cities would be good but not sure how to do that. It would need a game play mechanic to reward it and the AI to work out it needs to do it. This is probably too much change at this stage.

It is already benefitial to defend narrow spots to slow down enemy advance, disturb him with counterattacks, flank maneuvers, sneak behind the line with a few units etc. etc. I expect human players to use such tactics a lot. So the only real issue is to teach the AI to do all that. On advanced level it attempts to defend narrow spots, but there is a lot of room for improvement.

But probably we won't have enough units to form battle lines.