Slitherine

ElDude wrote: ↑Mon Sep 03, 2018 11:09 pm I have not seen any screen shots of this game until today. I just viewed the 3rd diary for the game. Has anyone commented on the fact that it's ugly?

This is an opinion, not a fact. But yes, some people liked it and others didn't. I guess, this will be the case no matter what we do.

We will work some more on relative sizes of terrain and units. If you compare screenshots in dev diaries two and three, you will see that the units are smaller in #2. We are still tweaking it. But this won't change the fundamental decision that the scale of terrain features in this game is much smaller, compared to the size of units, just as it has always been ever since the very first Panzer General. Terrain is important, yes, so main question is: is it difficult to tell terrain of any hex at a glance? It is all clear to my eye, but let me know if you are having difficulties with it.

Just out of curiosity, if you were designing this game, how would it look? Is there any other 3D strategy game which looks right to you?

Thanks to someone posting in another thread, I'd say take a look at a new game on steam called Panzer Strategy. They use zoom to accommodate the units to fit to the terrain. I like that idea. The units and the terrain, in my OPINION, should blend together like they belong. I don't understand the desire for 3D on a 2D screen. But, if your going for eye candy, again, look at Panzer Strategy. And, it's a turn based game. Perhaps, adding highlighted detail the the units to help them stand out and refine the lines on the unit would help?

I went back and looked at the map in your recent diary post. I do have issues with the map. I get the same initial impression as when I looked at it last night. The map looks like a back drop and not something relevant to the game. It has a faded look that doesn't help. I hope you understand, I really liked how PC works. I'm not trying to upset you or disparage the game or development in any way. I like the rules and game play a lot more than Order of Battle, which I gave up on as just not fun to play. I had high hopes for a PC2 and felt I needed to say something. Good luck with it. I'm still hopeful.

ElDude wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 1:12 am I went back and looked at the map in your recent diary post. I do have issues with the map. I get the same initial impression as when I looked at it last night. The map looks like a back drop and not something relevant to the game. It has a faded look that doesn't help. I hope you understand, I really liked how PC works. I'm not trying to upset you or disparage the game or development in any way. I like the rules and game play a lot more than Order of Battle, which I gave up on as just not fun to play. I had high hopes for a PC2 and felt I needed to say something. Good luck with it. I'm still hopeful.

Don't worry, we appreciate honest feedback and you taking time to voice your opinion. I think I understand where you are coming from, and we'll see if we can tweak the image to make map and units work better together. However, we very deliberately did not go for a look like in the other game you mention, so if that is your preference, you might still end up disappointed. Our reference points were games like Panzer General I and II, which had a relatively light map with reduced contrasts and subdued colors, with big and clear units standing out from the map perfectly. Although eye candy is important, visual clarity and usability are even more important for us.

Rudankort wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:59 am

ElDude wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 1:12 am I went back and looked at the map in your recent diary post. I do have issues with the map. I get the same initial impression as when I looked at it last night. The map looks like a back drop and not something relevant to the game. It has a faded look that doesn't help. I hope you understand, I really liked how PC works. I'm not trying to upset you or disparage the game or development in any way. I like the rules and game play a lot more than Order of Battle, which I gave up on as just not fun to play. I had high hopes for a PC2 and felt I needed to say something. Good luck with it. I'm still hopeful.

Don't worry, we appreciate honest feedback and you taking time to voice your opinion. I think I understand where you are coming from, and we'll see if we can tweak the image to make map and units work better together. However, we very deliberately did not go for a look like in the other game you mention, so if that is your preference, you might still end up disappointed. Our reference points were games like Panzer General I and II, which had a relatively light map with reduced contrasts and subdued colors, with big and clear units standing out from the map perfectly. Although eye candy is important, visual clarity and usability are even more important for us.

No, I'm not into eye candy. However, the world is not dull and drab. Are you trying to dismiss my view, or opinion, or are you listening to criticism? The reason I came here yesterday and ended up making a comment is because I was looking to see if It was finish and ready to purchase. But then I saw the screen shot. I was asking YOU if your were trying for eye candy as I can't figure out the purpose of creating a PCII, I would be fine with PC 1 if there were more scenarios. However, I don't not see an improvement in graphics, I see much worse. I'm just being honest.

As for eye candy, I began my hobby in the early 1960s as a 10 yr old playing Avlon Hill's Tactics II. I have a closet full of old AH games. Stopped buying them when I got my 1st computer and discovered SSI in the early 1980s. I was a beta tester for SSI in the 90's working on Western Front and War in the pacific along with other games. Eye candy is not an issue for me. I've played plenty of games in ASCII. I'll add that I've played all the 5 star general games and never noticed the map looking dull and out of place as in PCII. Game mechanics and the interface is important, but at the same time, the game shouldn't assault the senses when you look at it.

As for that other game, the game maybe a bit too colorful and glitzy it all goes away when you zoom in. That zoom with so many ways to look at the map. Well, that's not eye candy, that's darn smart, and I can see how useful it can be.

I hope PCII turns out to be a game I want to purchase. However, I am alarmed by what I've seen of the game. I thought I should say something. I tried.

ElDude wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:20 am No, I'm not into eye candy. However, the world is not dull and drab. Are you trying to dismiss my view, or opinion, or are you listening to criticism? The reason I came here yesterday and ended up making a comment is because I was looking to see if It was finish and ready to purchase. But then I saw the screen shot. I was asking YOU if your were trying for eye candy as I can't figure out the purpose of creating a PCII, I would be fine with PC 1 if there were more scenarios. However, I don't not see an improvement in graphics, I see much worse. I'm just being honest.

I thought I said quite clearly that we were listening and would try to improve the look of the game. If you want to be involved more in this process, you are very welcome to join the beta once it is announced.

Why Panzer Corps 2 is created is explained thoroughly in the first three dev diaries which we have published. They are all available in the "Announcements" section of this forum. Basically, from the accumulated experience of Panzer Corps and all its expansions, we see how many aspects of the game could be improved, and we hope to incorporate these improvements in the sequel.

In terms of graphics, some of our goals were:
- Better animations
- More visual variety (by this I mean something like what we showed in this video)
- Units which can be assigned any camo pattern and insignia (this video shows how it works)
- More naturally looking map (with less obvious hex structure)

While Panzer Corps had fine graphics, its technology did not allow us to do all these things, hence the change in technology. At the same time, I agree with you that the game "shouldn't assault the senses when you look at it". So I'll reiterate once again that we'll try our best to make it look more acceptable to everyone.

I came here thinking it might have been released. Then, I thought I read somewhere, that it was about to be released? It's not post beta? I apologize! And thanks for the offer to beta test. It was fun. however, I have all the games I tested still sealed in plastic wrap as I never wanted to play them after all those hours testing. Thanks, but all the hours I've enjoyed playing Panzer Corps and all the DLCs would have been lost had I tested it. But hey! I'm sure you'll take my money when it's released? Yes?

ElDude wrote: ↑Sat Sep 08, 2018 8:42 pm But hey! I'm sure you'll take my money when it's released? Yes?

Only if you like the game.

Rudankort wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 8:11 am - Units which can be assigned any camo pattern and insignia (this video shows how it works)

Will this be applied to create specific graphics for the smaller factions? For example the Bf 109E (which I have no doubt will be present in the German roster) was historically used by numerous others. For example, Romania and Yugoslavia had it in significant numbers. How will you handle this? Will you make a camo for each faction, will you make one camo fits all in the Axis camp and one in the Allied camp (Yugoslavia) or will you just use the German graphics?

Mark50 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:47 pm Will this be applied to create specific graphics for the smaller factions? For example the Bf 109E (which I have no doubt will be present in the German roster) was historically used by numerous others. For example, Romania and Yugoslavia had it in significant numbers. How will you handle this? Will you make a camo for each faction, will you make one camo fits all in the Axis camp and one in the Allied camp (Yugoslavia) or will you just use the German graphics?

Each faction has a default camo and insignia specified in factions table, and by default all units of this faction use them, unless this is overriden on a player level or individual unit level. So yes, this mechanics is directly related to supporting minor factions which used a lot of foreign equipment.

Sounds great! It`s how the Total War games used to function (using the same model with different, faction based textures). How will these faction skins be generated? Are you actually making individual textures for each unit (based on real life units) or is there just a single camo pattern and insignia that are automatically splashed on top of all the units of a certain faction?

Please consider adding Sturmtiger (Sturmpanzer VI) into the game, Thanks a lot.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmpanzer_VI

Sturmtiger (German: "Assault Tiger") is the common name of a World War II German assault gun built on the Tiger I chassis and armed with a large rocket launcher.

Mark50 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:19 am Sounds great! It`s how the Total War games used to function (using the same model with different, faction based textures). How will these faction skins be generated? Are you actually making individual textures for each unit (based on real life units) or is there just a single camo pattern and insignia that are automatically splashed on top of all the units of a certain faction?

No, we are not making an individual texture for each unit (it would be too huge a task), but we usually need several different materials to cover all models well enough. In particular, vehicles, aircraft and ships use different materials. So we have one logical skin (e. g. german feldgrau) and several materials implementing it.

r13exphantom wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 5:13 pm Please consider adding Sturmtiger (Sturmpanzer VI) into the game, Thanks a lot.

Yeah, Sturmtiger is on our list of models for Panzer Corps 2.

Rudankort wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:24 pm In particular, vehicles, aircraft and ships use different materials. So we have one logical skin (e. g. german feldgrau) and several materials implementing it.

I am not sure if it is possible, but I think I would like to see German feldgrau being used only until about early 1943 and after that most if not all German units (in Europe) should have a 3 tone camo (dark yellow, red-brown, olvie green). Maybe optionally, there could be a third camo for the early years 1937-40 (dark brown, dark grey) to be exactly precise: https://panzerworld.com/german-armor-camouflage

I would like to know about (in no particular order)
1. the existence of command units/HQ (on/off map), command areas, bonus/malus on coordinating attack/defend
2. heroes and their attributes, ability to move them from unit to unit, list of attributes that can be generic/specialized, off the map heroes with campaign wide effects based on battle/operation/campaign achievements
3. the existence of morale and its effects
4. the possibility of breakdowns for vehicles/guns and its effects based on intrinsic quality/climate/ground conditions/mileage, the possibility of expending prestige to repair
5. the possibility of sabotaging bridges/entrenchments etc, the possibility of revealing the terrain through spec ops
6. the obligation to rotate a certain % of personnel in and out of battle, influencing quality vs morale
7. the extent of initial information given to the player about what to expect in an operation (a series of battles), what are the ultimate targets and when are the deadlines. Knowing that, a player could adjust the number of turns dedicated to each battle more freely.
8. the existence of minefields in land and sea
9. the ability to run simultaneous fronts/operations and not just serially. The ability to transfer limited number of units from one front to another at a cost and sporadically instead of carrying over an entire uber team from one front to the next.
10. the breaking down of the battle results in terms of gains in morale/prestige/fuel/extra units and the ability for the player to select among them.

Ty

I like Aiscalp's 10 ideas. many of them might be beyond the scope of a game like this, but if you can do it, it would be very very cool! I have another idea, (or two or three) probably beyond a beer and pretzel game, but I can dream!

A) When it comes to removing the enemy from a town, I'd like it to break down to a smaller unit in-city fighting environment. Sort of like the old gold box D&D games by SSI where you'd have an encounter which would open a tactical screen to fight o B) I'd like the option to not do (A) during a turn,
C) I would like to see scenarios that are not the standard scenarios that every WWII game includes. I think I've done the Ardennes /the Bulge one too many times. I realize a lot of people like it, but there are a lot of interpretations of the bulge out there. I'd like to see some of the smaller, lesser known yet still desperate situations the war got soldiers into.
D) Getting totally out of the scope of the game, a Panzer Squad game. Smaller more tactically involved game. Panzer Corps broken down to squad, team, or individual level.

Well, time to wake up. thanks for listening.

McGuba wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 11:25 pm I am not sure if it is possible, but I think I would like to see German feldgrau being used only until about early 1943 and after that most if not all German units (in Europe) should have a 3 tone camo (dark yellow, red-brown, olvie green). Maybe optionally, there could be a third camo for the early years 1937-40 (dark brown, dark grey) to be exactly precise: https://panzerworld.com/german-armor-camouflage

This is on our wish list, so we'll see.

Aiscalp wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:51 pm 1. the existence of command units/HQ (on/off map), command areas, bonus/malus on coordinating attack/defend

This is on our wish list.

Aiscalp wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:51 pm 2. heroes and their attributes, ability to move them from unit to unit, list of attributes that can be generic/specialized, off the map heroes with campaign wide effects based on battle/operation/campaign achievements

We plan to publish full list of abilities once it is final. Yes you can move heroes between units.

Aiscalp wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:51 pm 3. the existence of morale and its effects

It is implied that certain gameplay effects (like combat penalties to encircled units) come from poor morale, but it does not exist as an explicit number you can see in game's UI.

Aiscalp wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:51 pm 4. the possibility of breakdowns for vehicles/guns and its effects based on intrinsic quality/climate/ground conditions/mileage, the possibility of expending prestige to repair

We have an "Unreliable" trait, but it does not work by reducing unit's strength. We felt that this would be too frustrating to most players. Instead, unreliable units can lose their attack action or some of their move points at the begining of a turn.

Aiscalp wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:51 pm 5. the possibility of sabotaging bridges/entrenchments etc, the possibility of revealing the terrain through spec ops

I'm not sure how exactly you would like it implemented, but we do have units which can destroy bridges, and units specifically intended to fight entrenchment.

Aiscalp wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:51 pm 6. the obligation to rotate a certain % of personnel in and out of battle, influencing quality vs morale

It is possible technically, but using this option is up to the designer of each specific campaign. I expect that the majority of our own content will not make it an "obligation".

Aiscalp wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:51 pm 7. the extent of initial information given to the player about what to expect in an operation (a series of battles), what are the ultimate targets and when are the deadlines. Knowing that, a player could adjust the number of turns dedicated to each battle more freely.

There are no plans to implement such a feature in 1.0. Beyond the initial release we might experiment with such more complex approaches to structuring our campaigns.

Aiscalp wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:51 pm 8. the existence of minefields in land and sea

Both types do exist.

Aiscalp wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:51 pm 9. the ability to run simultaneous fronts/operations and not just serially. The ability to transfer limited number of units from one front to another at a cost and sporadically instead of carrying over an entire uber team from one front to the next.

See above. More complicated campaign structures are something for the future, although I can definitely see some potential there.

Aiscalp wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:51 pm 10. the breaking down of the battle results in terms of gains in morale/prestige/fuel/extra units and the ability for the player to select among them.

The way it works now, you are awarded with prestige for your victories. Then you can spend it on various things, including extra units etc. You don't buy fuel for prestige in this game. As I said above, the concept of morale does not exist.

Awesome! Thanks a lot Rudankort for your detailed response. Let's hope that PC2 will at some time become legen...wait for it...