Slitherine

If there is one small thing I would prefer is the use of the recognised military unit symbols, much like the ones used with the major board games.

Still this is the first war game that tries to recreate those said board games and the Norm Kroger TOAW games so you have one convert.... Well done

Hi Jon,

I'll put my hand up and say that was me. I made a decision early on not to use either Nato symbols or 3D models.
Two reasons for the former . .

Firstly its a post war set of symbols. Didn't make sense to me to have them in a WW2 game. I know other games use them successfully but I didn't consider that enough of a reason on its own.

Secondly is our wider audience. I had to consider who the game was aimed at and while yes, our core audience are wargamers we don't want to aliennate a wider market. The game is potentially daunting to new players as it is but to have to face them with a load of indeciferable symbols would be too much. I thought the sillouettes provided a good alternative. They added character and flavour, show differences between national vehicles and gave a decent impression on the map.

As for 3D models .. if we were using real world scales then absolutely .. but over sized models just look like toys to me. I can't take them seriously and that's not the impression I wanted to give with Bulge.

Hope that doesn't offend anyone.

Pat

I'm with you on the 3D decision as I hate 3D and I too feel it cheapens the look; I wouldn't have bought the game if it had 3D symbology.

I understand your thought process and the game is certainly a breakthrough/crossover for war gamers and bringing game to the uninitiated. Still will put suggestion up for a NATO toggle switch!

I was also in favor of using Pat's silhouettes over NATO symbols, for the wider audience. However we might want to put in our "nice to have" hopper for future upgrades a toggle in preferences to switch between figures and symbols.

Hmm .
I'm actually in favour of the choice if I can do it without compromising the look and feel of the game but in truth that wouldn't be my decision to make.

You see it's not just the units that would be affected .. it's the combat preview, the combat resolution, the calendar, the tutorial, the rules, the briefing etc. .. every where those symbols are used .. and it doesn't just involve art but a large chunk of code too. What with Retina and standard res versions of all of them that's a sizable addition to the download too.

I think the preference for NATO symbols will be very strong by traditional wargamers. I do like to see tanks for armour units, but board games have been doing that for decades. Otherwise, the standard NATO symbols for mech, infantry, etc. But after playing the game for several weeks now, I can attest to getting used to the graphics and not even thinking about the NATO symbols any more. BotB has a much better look, IMHO, than e.g. iPad app Tank Battle, which has a little bit of that Steel Panthers look, but the combat model is really dorky, simulating nothing it seems.

I'd like the NATO symbols as a toggle - turned off by default, but grognards can turn them on in the options. I find it hard to look at a battlemap without looking at my infantry Xs! In another recent title, Command The Great War, they had beautiful 2D models of all the units, which I enjoy turning on for a bit of eye candy. But then when I get down to the serious business of strategizing, it's NATO back on for me (they offer it as a toggled option).

Come on, guys! This is an iPad app. It is not supposed to have zillions of user preference settings. I would rather have Shenandoah spend their valuable time adding a few scenarios or improving the AI instead of working on questionable cosmetic options.

Good lord, this game has been out for only a day, it's a remarkable achievement in bringing board wargames to a tablet while taking full advantage of all that format has to offer, and all you can do is go on about NATO symbols?

If NATO symbols are an issue, then that ought to be addressed early for due consideration down the road. Once one gets immersed in game play, however, the unit graphics as they are are just fine, taking on a life of their own.

Hmm... I jumped right in after getting the game from the app store and must confess that everything seemed to "feel right". The game was eminently playable from the getgo, that's as good a test as any in my mind. And, by the way, 3D characterizations seem to lend a cartoonish quality to most of these games, don't they?

I didn't think I was going to start such a debate so it's interesting to see the thread.
I totally agree with the "more scenarios" first cosmetics later.
The more I play the less I feel the need for NATO symbols but the diehards may differ.

My vote goes to the ability to toggle. Ah yes, more scenarios comes first.

My vote is not to spend the effort on alternative symbology. I stare at MS2525 symbols too much already and the unit graphics are very well done lending itself to a very polished feel.

I'm curious if the rounded rects on the mech units vs square edges on the infantry was a deliberate design cue or if the infantry silhouettes simply looked funny with rounded corners.

I believe it was intentional, and was probably mentioned in one of Pat’s art diaries (on the main web site).