Hello All!
Finally we made the new beta build. Took us a lot of time for various reasons, sorry for keeping you waiting. As always, we are willing to hear your feedback!
The biggest change in 0.93a is online multiplayer. It still lacks a few features, in particular exchange of messages between the players and replay of the opponent's previous turn. But we wanted to share what we have with you already, because network stuff usually requires a lot of time to stabilize. Everyone has a different connection type, firewall configuration, connection speed and a bunch of other things which can effect the game. If you experience any technical problems with online games, please let us know. Another important question is about multiplayer logic and flow. Are there scenarios where the game goes into plain wrong state, or which can be abused to get an advantage over the opponent? If yes, we are want to hear about this and fix them! And finally, I'm wondering if the new multiplayer is clear and intuitive enough. Of course, if you have experience with some other Slitherine games which use the same approach, everything should be pretty obvious. But if any of you guys are new to Slitherine's server-assisted PBEM++ multiplayer, I'm willing to hear about your experience. Was it immediately clear how to use multiplayer? If not, what specific aspects posed difficulty? What messages and other hints can we add to make it easier and more user friendly?
As usual, new build includes some more new scenarios. Good news is that you can now play the campaign all the way up to Berlin and try full german equipment list in action. Probably it is the right time to start discussing scenarios in more depth. Which scenarios are your favorites, which you don't like to play and why? Which scenario are best candidates to try against a human in multiplayer?
We have also made a lot of graphics improvements, and while many of them did not change usability of the UI in any way, some aspects are interesting enough to discuss here. In particular, I wonder what you guys think about the combat estimation. Is it clear what the numbers mean? Does it look well visually? Please share your thoughts on this. Another question is about the strategic map and the minimap. These should be pretty close to their final state (adding better city/airport indication to the minimap is on my todo list), but I'm open to suggestions how to make them even more useful - we still have time to implement that. Some people here complained that our movement indication was too white. So, in the new build we tried to make the overlays more transparent. But I'm afraid that now the icons (dots, trucks etc.) look more disjoined. What is your impression? Is it an improvement or a step back? Finally, it would be interesting to hear more feedback on the icons we use to indicate various unit stats. Which icons you like? Which you don't? What would be better to use instead?
New build includes all music that will be included with the final release. There is one main menu theme and three ingame themes, picked randomly. You can find all files in game's /Audio/Music folder. It would be interesting to know what you guys think about these themes.
We made a number of changes in the overall unit class balance. In particular, we attempted to make units more persistent, although in some cases (like infantry vs. infantry in a city) the combat can still be bloody. Artillery and ships now cause lasting suppression; AA units are used more as a means to suppress enemy bombers, not kill the all on the spot. Unit class balance work is still work in progress, we'll do much more during the next couple of weeks, but still, any feedback on specific balance problems is very much welcome to make sure we don't miss anything important!
Sounds and animations you see in this build hint at the direction we'll take but are still pretty much temporary. We are preparing a surprise for the next build, stay tuned!
Build 0.93a
Moderators: Slitherine Core, The Lordz, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
The return of PG like combat videos would be awesome, but that might be wishful thinking. A number of titles have used videos like that, one of the more well known being Advance Wars.We are preparing a surprise for the next build, stay tuned!
I always felt sorry for the guys who were shooting out of the windows of their trucks.
Re: Build 0.93a
This thread got buried, I'll bump it because it has some good content and questions.Rudankort wrote:Another question is about the strategic map and the minimap. These should be pretty close to their final state (adding better city/airport indication to the minimap is on my todo list), but I'm open to suggestions how to make them even more useful - we still have time to implement that. Some people here complained that our movement indication was too white. So, in the new build we tried to make the overlays more transparent. But I'm afraid that now the icons (dots, trucks etc.) look more disjoined. What is your impression? Is it an improvement or a step back? Finally, it would be interesting to hear more feedback on the icons we use to indicate various unit stats. Which icons you like? Which you don't? What would be better to use instead?
Strategic map: Missing city ownership markers. I found myself trying to use the strategic map to make sure I captured every city on the map for maximum prestige, only to see city ownership has no representation.
As for the new overlay, I'd say it's an improvement because no one mentioned it to complain about it. I still prefer a PG2 movement 'bubble' though, with different shading or color tinting of the bubble to represent the cross over from normal movement to mounted movement.
-
Hammer4000
- Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 5:48 am
- Location: Ohio,USA
Strategic map: Missing city ownership markers. I found myself trying to use the strategic map to make sure I captured every city on the map for maximum prestige, only to see city ownership has no representation.
yea i brought that one up aswell, a ownership flag on them would be most helpful, after all it is a strategic map,
Captain i would commence the attack but i have no idea what we own on this map!
-
Hammer4000
- Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 5:48 am
- Location: Ohio,USA
-
Hammer4000
- Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 5:48 am
- Location: Ohio,USA
Suggestion for multiplayer:
Surrender option. Low Countries is just getting worse and worse, I almost feel bad for my opponent at this point. There should be a way for both sides to agree to end a game pre-maturely instead of needing to play it to conclusion or wait 30 days to claim a game. If one side wants to surrender, the other side can accept the victory. If I offer for my opponent to surrender, but he rejects it (NUTS! Button) the scenario continues. If one side wants to surrender but the other player is a jerk and rejects it, then the person who wanted to surrender can just wait 30 days for the jerk to claim the game.
BTW 30 days is excessive, I would say two weeks (14 days).
Surrender option. Low Countries is just getting worse and worse, I almost feel bad for my opponent at this point. There should be a way for both sides to agree to end a game pre-maturely instead of needing to play it to conclusion or wait 30 days to claim a game. If one side wants to surrender, the other side can accept the victory. If I offer for my opponent to surrender, but he rejects it (NUTS! Button) the scenario continues. If one side wants to surrender but the other player is a jerk and rejects it, then the person who wanted to surrender can just wait 30 days for the jerk to claim the game.
BTW 30 days is excessive, I would say two weeks (14 days).
Yes, surrender is a great idea and will definitely be added - in fact, for single player too. This option is used to "finalize" the game, after which it will be added to your dossier and available for replay. On the other hand, if you just quit, the game is not finished, and so you cannot replay it and see what the AI did and what you did wrong etc.
As for 30 days, you may be right, but this we need to discuss with Iain. PBEM server is beyond my power.
As for 30 days, you may be right, but this we need to discuss with Iain. PBEM server is beyond my power.
Allow the game-host to input how many days he wants max-wait. Include this info in the game listing so other players can see it before they agree to accept.BTW 30 days is excessive, I would say two weeks (14 days).
Experience Ratio = (def exp level + 2)/(att exp level + 2)
Entrenchment Ratio = (def entr rate + 1) /(att entr rate + 1)
If it's possible, I would not reject this idea. More user control and flexibility is always a good thing, with the proper safe guards.Obsolete wrote:Allow the game-host to input how many days he wants max-wait. Include this info in the game listing so other players can see it before they agree to accept.
Sounds like a good idea BTW. But I don't have a lot experience with multiplayer, so I'm not sure. Perhaps this would fragment multiplayer and make it harder to find an opponent? Need Iain's opinion on this.Obsolete wrote:Allow the game-host to input how many days he wants max-wait. Include this info in the game listing so other players can see it before they agree to accept.
PS. Existing clients (other games using the server) can default to 30, so that they do not break because of the change, but in the future they can adapt this setting too.
Something else I just realized about the mini-map: there is no representation for rivers. There's also none for roads and railways, but I don't consider those to be vital. Rivers, however, are usually are very important and may warrant some representation on the mini-map.
I don't think any map in it's current form is balanced for multiplayer, let alone 'fun'.
Kinda makes me want to build maps specifically for multiplayer from scratch. However anything I would make would probably sacrifice historical accuracy for good game play. Maybe even some outright fictional ones, USA vs USSR in 1943. The campaign can be all about being historically accurate, when I play multi-player, I throw that sort of concern out the window because it usually means one player has a significant (historical) advantage over their opponent.
After a few play tests, and from what I already know from single player, I'm afraid to say 'none'. Maybe Low Countries and France after some extensive re-balancing, maybe. I don't see how some scenarios (Norway in particular) could ever possibly be balanced for multiplayer. I'm sort of curious how much of a disaster Berlin East is going to play out to be, 60 vs 100 units, including 5 vs 21 air, but currently game play takes too long and I don't have the patience for a scenario of that size with the current combat speeds. Late war scenarios are especially unfun and unbalanced because of things like the terrible Soviet SPAAG, near invulnerable KV-1Cs, Elephants, and Jagdtigers, and incredible abundance of units the Russians have which have 2-4 ammo total.Which scenario are best candidates to try against a human in multiplayer?
I don't think any map in it's current form is balanced for multiplayer, let alone 'fun'.
Kinda makes me want to build maps specifically for multiplayer from scratch. However anything I would make would probably sacrifice historical accuracy for good game play. Maybe even some outright fictional ones, USA vs USSR in 1943. The campaign can be all about being historically accurate, when I play multi-player, I throw that sort of concern out the window because it usually means one player has a significant (historical) advantage over their opponent.
