Slitherine

Maybe this thread could spur some new creative ideas for this game, as I dont see another thread like it.

I've read some reviews on Steam, while being mostly positive, the negative reviews sometimes complain about the UI and clunky interface. I'm not sure I agree with that completely. Sure it could be made a little slicker. The 'J' shortcut currently isnt yet implemented so you cant toggle map features, there's a screenshot ability, but the obtrusive floating Unit and Map icons block an otherwise nice screenshot. Getting units to not only face the right direction, but turn their turrets and do it effortlessly without having to resort to a buncha clicking and rotating the map around to click within the squares is awkward. Then there's unit AI and Force Organization and Points, which is the biggest issue the game has IMO.

Here's how to fix it all from a gamers perspective. Hopefully the Devs will be able to address all these issue to make this game better.

1.) Fix the UI appearance: The missing Map toggle and having floating Unit and Map Flags and Icons obstructs any potential screenshots.

2.) Getting a unit's facing, turret and overwatch direction is awkward/clunky: Implement a CTRL or ALT or SHIFT button + mouse rotation that allows the unit to freely swivel in a direction while the key is pressed and the mouse is moved so the unit or turret spins on it's axis to face the desired direction. This would preclude having to do a lot of clicking and map rotation to insure a units facing with overwatch, hull direction and turret facing and make it quick, easy and slick.

3.) Some unit AI still isnt working well: Killa Cans are not aggressive with melee combat, Mega-Nobz will advance toward you, but have never fired or attacked in melee that I have seen and the Ork AI commits to melee in ineffective waves which just lead them to die horribly. So fix that.

4.) More detail in unit tracking with kills and losses. Currently, the victory condition breakdown keeps track of total units destroyed. What about soldiers lost? Lets have more detail in that area. It seems so bare bones.

5.) Force points: In Skirmish and Multiplayer, Force point choices often do not allow you to choose units adding up to that total. For example, if I setup a game for 4,000 points, Sometimes the total units available in the Force Organization will not even add up to 3,000 points. So you really can't be sure you're giving one side a point total advantage or not. So fix that. If I make a game with 5000 point Force Points, I expect my units in the Force Organization to add up to more than that so I have some choices.

6.) Force Organization (FO). Aside from the above issue with FO, the unit list that spawns in the FO window that lets you choose your units is RANDOM every time you start either a Skirmish or a Multiplayer match. The unit choices seem to reflect some kind of restriction on unit leaders or specific vehicles that the devs felt shouldnt show in one of the Army Lists, but it is deeply flawed from a replayability and unit choice standpoint. Being that it is always random, I'll never be able to try the same army list twice in a skirmish. That's highly disappointing. Even more disappointing is not being able to choose my favorite units. They are in the game, but rarely do they appear as a unit to pick to field in battle. And even more disappointing than that let's say I want to do a huge mechanized battle. Well, the FO spawns random units and mostly that's infantry. So despite having Gargants, Deff Dreads, Battlewagons and Killa cans or Knight Titans, Land Raiders, Predators and a bunch of Rhino's, you're at the mercy of a foot slogger army with a few random heavy unit choices thrown into the mix by the lousy Force Organization list. So your hopes of fielding grandiose battles wont ever happen.

Here's how to fix it. Have the Force Organization allow you to choose whatever you want up to your force total, If I want a force of all Dreadnoughts, let me have it. And add a toggle button to make it all random, like it is now. So If I want to choose to fight with a mechanized force, I can, or fight with what is available to me randomly, I can.

I wouldnt have written all this if I didnt think this game is good. It is. It's fun as hell to play. But without giving me more control over the FO list and units I can field, I'll grow tired of the constant random unit battles and will lose interest in this game. So please make this game great! I know that it can be. If I could mod a few things, this game would be awesome. It really is fun. Thank you.

I have a small request. I would like to be able to close the detailed unit info popup by pressing the button or ctrl-click again. Playing on a laptop using a touchpad I'd like to do as little precise mouse movement as possible.

Edit: oh and also some kind of fade of dead units to declutter the battlefield.

I also hope the devs read your comments. As far as the UI, I guess you have never played Matrix Tigers on the Hunt. It is amazing what poor UI's wargamers will put up with. I am used to the Battle Academy engine interface, so I am okay, but some are not.

The AI I am hoping they will work on per your comments, and force points and organization. I get around that by copying the campaigns and plopping down any unit I like in each scenario via the editor. But yes, I was wondering where all the other units were in skirmish. I could barely do a 2,000 point list without repeating my selections of units.

Thanks for the inputs.

I probably posted this in the wrong place, so I will toss it here too in hopes it will be seen.

I am not a beta test member but I thought I would offer my .02 as a 40k fan and a Battle Academy fan. First though, I am really glad to see and play this title and I am looking forward to more. Bravo Zulu!

The Good:
1) Fine job on the overall atmosphere and look. It really screams 40k! Besides simply adding more varied and slightly improved animations, perhaps adding varied KIA and destroyed vehicles models, etc.. I think the general look and feel is perfect. No need for super fancy models or spectacular SFX that clog up computers.

2) It is simple to play. The game is very intuitive for the user. That is excellent.

3) It is not a click-fest RTS. Most excellent good Sirs.

4) IT is FUN! (with some caveats..see below).

The Bad:
1) Game Start: There are some incongruities with some scenarios starting with deployment zones and others not. It should be uniform and a certain type of deployment zone should exist for every map. The traditional TT deployments zones (such as Dawn of War or Vanguard Strike or Hammer and Anvil from the TT) should be part of every map. Forced deployment set ups forgo any strategic thought from the player at the get go. Why do that? Give the player strategic choices right at start up. Perhaps at start up the player could also designate some forces as reserves and perhaps they would cost a bit less to purchase in the unit purchase phase since the chances for their arrival would be random in a similar manner as the TT. It would also be ideal to be able to purchase upgraded wargear like in the Table Top (TT) in skirmish mode such as Krak grenades, etc... In the campaigns, the mission briefs are very...brief. While cinematics between missions are not necessary at all, more narrative to set the scene and explain the why of the scenario would be much more immersive. They could also use more specific details for each specific scenario, especially when reaching an objective (such a communications array) results in something (such as a drop pod with a Dreadnaught being available).

2) Reading the effects of the terrain on the maps is difficult, especially when trying to determine if a certain path a unit can take is viable or not. Cover seems to not work very well. Also the map can be very hard to read as far as LOS, whether or not a unit can move through an area, etc.

3) Health bars and Hit Points (HP). Get rid of the health bars, or allow them to be toggled. Ideally, hit decals added to models when damage is sustained would be much better to indicate visually that a unit is damaged. Still show the numerical damage value in the unit panel when a unit is selected for details for the player. Personally I would prefer to get rid of the HP system entirely and go to something more akin to the TT version limited "wound" system. Armor values should be emphasized over HPs. A penetrating hit is a penetrating hit that results in damage or a kill, depending on the target. Otherwise the shot bounces off armor or misses entirely. A HP system deemphasizes tactics and creates a very RTS like system of combat.

4) Weapon effects, especially flamers, could use a little more variety in the animations, and perhaps a better template shown when the unit is selected. The damage system is borked with what appears to be a very completely random amount of damage done, which can vary greatly with no apparent rhyme or reason. Ork Gretchin gun's can do serious damage to Space Marines, even those in Terminator armor! WHAT?! A more appropriate system of weapon profiles, similar to the TT system, based on weapon ballistic penetration values and armor values would be a fantastic improvement. Vehicles having weaker side and rear armor (like in the TT as well) would be great too. If I had to pick one thing to change first, it would be to overhaul the weapon and armor mechanics and make it a much more tactical game in that regard. Also, some of the damage estimates provided are very incorrect, showing the chance of damage being "very low" yet the actual damage inflicted can be very high when executed. Why is there such an incongruity?

5) While there is melee combat, there are not any 'charges' like in the TT. A deliberate menu choice for charging, with an added benefit of moving further while risking overwatch fire from the target would truly stand out as a 40k tactical game.

6) There are no 'tank shocks or ramming'..aka a vehicle over-run as an option to attack. Armored vehicles should be able to over-run infantry. Currently a group of Ork Gretchin can stop a Rhino APC cold in its tracks while the vehicle is moving. Why? The Rhino should literally just drive right over Ork Gretchin (and other basic infantry) and crush them should the infantry fail to stop the vehicle with overwatch fire or its own melee attack (if the infantry have something that can even penetrate the vehicle's armor).

7) There are only tactical objectives in skirmish mode, which limit gameplay. Adding from the TT such things as Slay the Warlord, Linebreaker and First Blood as additional objectives would be great. Variable game length would be great too.

There is no option to 'survey' the battlefield after a scenario ends. The developers created a beautiful game! Let player's enjoy the fruits of their victories and look at the carnage they inflicted...or cry over the agony of their defeat. Showing a kill count per unit in 3D at the end, plus any objectives that unit achieved, would also be cool. Currently the scenario just ends and goes to a stat list where it is hard to put credits to the actual 'faces' of the units.

9) Please make the unit flag icons toggle-able, the map gets very cluttered with them, or make them appear just when the mouse is near a unit's model.

10) There are no 'go to ground' for ground units or 'jinking' defensive actions for skimmers and bikes like in the TT. This tactical option (with the appropriate penalties as well) would be a great addition to gameplay. They could be menu options to be selected during a player's turn, and the effects last through the enemy player's turn.

11) The camera needs some improvements. It should go from parallel to the ground to a directly overhead view in my opinion. In an advanced mode, it can be limited to prevent the movement of the camera beyond the LOS of the player's units.

12) Last, the sounds should be improved. While not horrible, they do not grab the imagination in my opinion like other 40k games have done so well. More space marine and ork voices would be great, better weapon and death sound effects. I kept listening for a massive ork "WAAAAAAHG!", did I miss it?.. more space marine sayings and radio chatter would be great fluff too. Frankly the Dawn of War games, as flawed as they were for my taste, rocked this aspect and practically institutionalized how things SHOULD sound in 40k in my opinion. Make that the bar for this game. I really was hoping for Sanctus Reach to sound like the Dawn of War games.

The Ugly:
1) The game grinds a bit during melee with the unit attacks etc. Once melee is joined, speed it up and make it LOOK like a melee. Have those weapons swinging and clanging along with the shouts of combat all together. Once a unit is in melee, it is stuck in melee so make it fast and furious and gory! Also space marine and ork units such as flamers, etc.. should all still have combat melee weapons even if not as good at melee than standard infantry.

2) Terrain needs much more work in terms of in-game mechanics. There is no reason why a Dreadnought can't simply smash through a wall. Why do trees block the movement of infantry? Why do buildings? Yes there should be movement point costs, but "NO GO" terrain really limits a map and confuse players since there is no way to 'map out' a potential route beyond a unit's movement range during a turn.

3) The AI needs improvement. AI controlled units can be seen moving forward and back, back and forward again, then shooting or attacking. Why? This makes no sense at all. It would be better if they stayed static and just attacked. Looks BAD too.

4) The voice overs are great, but should be simultaneous with actions and there should be more of them concurrent with the moving and shooting and melee. But currently the game literally pauses due to them. It gets very irritating and bothersome when they should be adding to the immersion of the game and the combat.

5) The game can seriously drag at times with the single unit by single unit actions when there are a lot of units on the map. Speeding up the game at every opportunity would be appreciated. Perhaps the ability to multi-select units to move/attack as multi-unit groups would also help game play speed. If a 'crossfire bonus' or something could be added to encourage multi-selecting units when attacking against a single target, or a group of adjacent targets, this feature would also help speed up gameplay. (I would jump for joy for an optional simultaneous resolution WEGO system like in Combat Mission, where orders are given by each side and then a simultaneous action phase takes place for each turn. With a 40k environment, it would be epic!)

6) Unit purchase system is disappointingly weak. There are not any unit lists like in the TT with a required HQ, Troop choice, Heavy support, etc. No Warlord traits, no infiltrate/scout/deep strike/outflanking options (the scout option alone would be awesome for recon purposes with the hidden units out of LOS...in the TT all the units are obviously visible to the player), and as mentioned above, no options such as grenades, wargear upgrades, etc. And there are no sergeants to add directly to a squad, they are just other units. And the ability to save an army list for future skirmishes by point level would be a great time saver and fun to play.

Thanks for listening and for making the game in the first place. Really looking forward to more, 40k in this game format has such a huge tactical gaming potential. I like this tactical level of game play a lot and prefer it over the Dawn of War RTS's very much.

Thanks for all the excellent feedback. I'll add it to the list!

IainMcNeil wrote:Thanks for all the excellent feedback. I'll add it to the list!

Thank you for listening and for the hours of wargaming so far. Looking forward to more.

Excellent game over all, but the scenarios need some attention. How about a more sensible spawning of reinforcements? I'm in the middle campaign and having a blast in some huge industrial map and then reinforcements come in. Yay, new troops spawning close to a victory point! Let's fan out ... oh, nobody around? Excellent! So next turn the Orcs spawn in the back of some of my moved troops, who are looking at the completely opposite side (makes sense, no?). Needless to say, half of my fresh reinforcements get wasted for no reason but bad spawning mechanics. Why set the spawning sequence and position like that? Unless the player already played that map, they can't possibly foresee this happening. And on the replay, setting your reinforcements up in anticipation of spawning Orcs isn't any better

Shrike wrote:Excellent game over all, but the scenarios need some attention. How about a more sensible spawning of reinforcements? I'm in the middle campaign and having a blast in some huge industrial map and then reinforcements come in. Yay, new troops spawning close to a victory point! Let's fan out ... oh, nobody around? Excellent! So next turn the Orcs spawn in the back of some of my moved troops, who are looking at the completely opposite side (makes sense, no?). Needless to say, half of my fresh reinforcements get wasted for no reason but bad spawning mechanics. Why set the spawning sequence and position like that? Unless the player already played that map, they can't possibly foresee this happening. And on the replay, setting your reinforcements up in anticipation of spawning Orcs isn't any better

I have not gotten that far in the campaign, I have been playing skirmish battles mostly but in my opinion reinforcements should not be a total surprise in that they player should be aware that they might be coming at some point during the game, just like in the TT. But even in the TT, reinforcements deep striking can appear very close to enemy units, it is the nature of a deep strike. But traditionally units arrive at the friendly back edge of the map board for the side they are on.

Another point is that the maps might need to be a bit bigger with objectives not so near the map edges, this would alleviate ground reinforcements suddenly appearing near an objective with the players units so close.

The ability for armored vehicle to "pop smoke" would be pretty useful and cool feature to add.

If they change this so that it doesn't look like both sides took the same bus to the battlefield, things will be just fine

With a pure HP system vehicles are fully operational until they are completely destroyed. A vehicle with less than 60% of its HP's should not be working just as well as a vehicle with 100% of its HP. In my opinion, the game would benefit if vehicles performance degraded in a corresponding manner with the damage it has sustained. In the TT, penetrations result can result in the following happening to a vehicle:

1) CREW SHAKEN
The vehicle is rocked by the attack, but no serious damage
is sustained (or perhaps the crew have decided that it is
time to quickly relocate). The vehicle may not shoot until
the end of its next player turn.

2) CREW STUNNED
The vehicles crew is knocked about by the attack, or perhaps all of the vehicles
targeting and steering systems are temporarily scrambled (or maybe the crew have
decided to temporarily bail out and take cover somewhere nearby). The vehicle may not
move nor shoot until the end of its next player turn.
Note: Additional stunned and shaken results are not cumulative, so if a vehicle is shaken
three times it is still only unable to fire in its next Shooting phase, not its next three
Shooting phases!

3) WEAPON DESTROYED
One of the vehicle‟s weapons (chosen by the attacker) is destroyed – ripped off by the
force of the attack. If a vehicle has no weapons left, treat this result as an "immobilised‟
result instead. This can include vehicle upgrades that function as weapons, such as
pintle-mounted storm bolters or hunter-killer missiles.

4) DAMAGED - IMMOBILIZED
The vehicle has taken a hit that has crippled a wheel, track, grav plate, jet or leg. It may
not move for the rest of the game. An immobilized vehicle may not turn in place but its
turret may continue to rotate to select targets, and other weapons retain their normal arc
of fire. Further "immobilized‟ results count as "weapon destroyed‟ instead.
Note: A vehicle that suffers either Damaged result when it has no weapons left and is
already immobilized treats the result as "Destroyed – Wrecked‟ instead.

5) DESTROYED - WRECKED
The attack critically damages the hull and internal systems – the vehicle is destroyed.
The model is left in place and becomes a wreck.

6) DESTROYED - EXPLODES
The vehicle is destroyed, as its fuel and ammo detonate, ripping it apart in a spectacular
explosion. Flaming debris is scattered D6" from the vehicle, and models in range suffer a
Strength 3, AP– hit. The vehicle is then removed and is replaced with an area of difficult
ground representing scattered wreckage or a crater (if you have one).

Note: Vehicle drivers, gunners and other crew are killed if their vehicle suffers either
Destroyed results.

So perhaps SR could use a system similar to that for vehicles when they take significant damage or armor penetrations.

Also... seeing a vehicle suffer a catastrophic kill and completely explode would look great in the game Flaming bits everywhere.

Is there a way for the tactical mini-map to rotate and orient with the player's current view of the 3D map?

Just one small thought about a small detail.

The lascannon laser shots are a bit dim and not very laser-like at all. Any chance they could be made brighter and more laser blast like?

The lascannon SFX in Armageddon are much better.

Please add more detailed statistics at the end of the mission. With some nice arts.

1.) Trukk: The Space Wolves have Rhinos. If the Orks would have had a campaign scenario, which you guys didnt give them, you would have seen the need for them to have a light cheap transport like the Trukk. They really really need this one to be competitive and make their mechanized forces balanced.

2.) Tankbustas or Wargear Stikkbombz: This fills the role of anti-tank the Orks need to have. Orks are hard pressed to find the necessary anti-tank because there's no stikkbombz unit options. Maybe stikkbombz could be a wargear item if it isnt already, I havent seen it. But if you could equip either Nobz or Orkboys with wargear items like stikkbombz, Tankbusta units wouldnt be necessary.

3.) WAAAGH! The Orks need their leaders to be able once per game to initiate a WAAAGH that gives all Orks within 5 spaces a boost in either movement or another action point. We need proppa sound effects and all the boys need to cheer and yell and shoot their pistols in the air. I'd like to see 1.5 times movement. But instead, you could add an extra action point.

After more game play, the following additional things have also popped into mind, hopefully some of these are low-hanging fruit that could be quickly addressed.

1) There are no sound effects for any of the non-lethal grenades, only for the frag grenades. These should all have some sort of sound effect. It would be cool if the stun grenade had a 'flash bang' effect.

2) You cannot target area effect weapons on an open tile, only on a tile that has something in it such as a wall or tree or debris. You should be able to target any tile within LOS and range, just like the flamer.

3) Tiles with a type of cover within a flamer's area of effect do not take damage, only enemy units. Trees at least should take damage and burn. It would be cool if they kept burning until gone and a burned effect was added to the ground. Shouldn't chainswords cut down trees fast?

4) There are not any sound effects for troops mounting up or dismounting. It would be a great effect to hear the marines and orks say something as they do either (without pausing any action).

5) In my opinion, vehicles/walkers with multiple weapons should be able to fire every single weapon each turn, no matter how many times the other weapons were fired. For example, if the Predator tank fires it autocannon twice, it should still be able to fire its heavy bolter. The players should not have to pick which one. If side mounted weapons ever get put in the game, then these would have to have independent LOS to their targets to fire though.

6) A compass added to the 3D game map would be helpful.

7) Can additional editor options be added to skirmish mode? This would be items such as:
A) Weather, time of day, a set up zone on map.

B) More kinds of objectives (for example the primary objective could be kill the enemy HQ..ie, Slay the Warlord, or to destroy something like a power generator or comm relay, etc), and not just VP tiles to touch.

C) The ability to give the AI extra points for reinforcements, this will compensate for the AI not being able to outplay a human player on equal terms.

There is not a space marine armed with a heavy bolter, is this something the Space Wolves do not use within their Codex?



GET SOME!

It would be great to make a campaign in the future against the xenomorph's !!

Another issue popped up. I put a landspeeder on top of a high structure and yet an enemy unit was still able to lock it in melee. The enemy unit did not use its melee weapons and only ranged weapons but they should not lock the landspeeder in their zone of control.

ImperialGrunt wrote:Another issue popped up. I put a landspeeder on top of a high structure and yet an enemy unit was still able to lock it in melee. The enemy unit did not use its melee weapons and only ranged weapons but they should not lock the landspeeder in their zone of control.

Agreed

ImperialGrunt wrote:After more game play, the following additional things have also popped into mind, hopefully some of these are low-hanging fruit that could be quickly addressed.

1) There are no sound effects for any of the non-lethal grenades, only for the frag grenades. These should all have some sort of sound effect. It would be cool if the stun grenade had a 'flash bang' effect.

2) You cannot target area effect weapons on an open tile, only on a tile that has something in it such as a wall or tree or debris. You should be able to target any tile within LOS and range, just like the flamer.

3) Tiles with a type of cover within a flamer's area of effect do not take damage, only enemy units. Trees at least should take damage and burn. It would be cool if they kept burning until gone and a burned effect was added to the ground. Shouldn't chainswords cut down trees fast?

4) There are not any sound effects for troops mounting up or dismounting. It would be a great effect to hear the marines and orks say something as they do either (without pausing any action).

5) In my opinion, vehicles/walkers with multiple weapons should be able to fire every single weapon each turn, no matter how many times the other weapons were fired. For example, if the Predator tank fires it autocannon twice, it should still be able to fire its heavy bolter. The players should not have to pick which one. If side mounted weapons ever get put in the game, then these would have to have independent LOS to their targets to fire though.

6) A compass added to the 3D game map would be helpful.

7) Can additional editor options be added to skirmish mode? This would be items such as:
A) Weather, time of day, a set up zone on map.

B) More kinds of objectives (for example the primary objective could be kill the enemy HQ..ie, Slay the Warlord, or to destroy something like a power generator or comm relay, etc), and not just VP tiles to touch.

C) The ability to give the AI extra points for reinforcements, this will compensate for the AI not being able to outplay a human player on equal terms.

There is not a space marine armed with a heavy bolter, is this something the Space Wolves do not use within their Codex?

i AGREE WITH IT ALL CEPT 5 AND 6. OOPS CAPS.

I dont know how they can setup say a land raider, with its 4x different weapons (Twin linked Bolter, Twin Linked Hvy Bolter, 2x Twin Linked lascannons) and keep track of each one as it fires. The game is just simple and stupid and works the way it is. You get to fire something twice, period. Otherwise, the game would have to be setup to remember which weapon fired. Something I dont think it does. Its just simple stupid and gives you two action points. There's a lot of balance thats gone into the way they've set it up so far and I think if we did it your way, which is the most tactical and accurate way to do it, would be balance and game breaking, kinda sending us back to the drawing board.

From a developers standpoint, I thinks simple stupid is a better way to go because although its less accurate in representing a model, it seems a faster easier way to add new units and to play balance them being simple stupid. It works the way it is, so I disagree with accurately modeling the weapons. Sorry.

And why do you need a compass? Cannot the map just always be oriented North to start? That's solve a lot of issues with people getting turned around. How and where would you put a compass. Im part of the less is more UI crowd.