Whats Next?

[Jim]

And the combat will take place on this planet (#3 from the sun).

-Jim

[Shirkon]

And north of the equator.

[Saddletank]

I need to remeber what sadists the NSD team are.

Can we have a small *meaningful* hint?

[RDBoles]

I think we are going west. Shiloh,Chickamauga,or Murphreesburo. These are battles large enough in terrain and OOB's. Also each army was more or less on equal terms as to size and leadership abilities. Each battle could have gone either way in it's outcome. Each were a two day struggle. So in my humble opinion which counts for nothing, we go west.

[Saddletank]

Maybe guys we could take the OT chat to the "other games" forum? Thanks.

[con20or]

Sorry, my fault - I started that. I've created a 'subsims' thread in the 'other games' forum and moved the posts there.

[35th Georgia]

The Wilderness and Shiloh are two of my favorites. Wilderness being my first choice.

[Martin James]

They are both interesting battles. My worry with heavily wooded battlefields though is that I find they have less replayability. When you're in a wood, they all look very much the same.

I found this with Chancellorsville. Very nice maps, but I now find myself going back to the older Gettysburg, Antietam and the Pipe Creek ones, which I feel give more terrain variety. My preference would therefore be for something a bit more open. Brandy Station was a good mix IMHO.

I appreciate that others may feel differently

Martin (J)

[rudy]

I agree with your comment about trees.

I didn't play many battles of the Chancellorsville release because of all the trees.

I'll pass on Shiloh or the Wilderness, thanks.

To keep up with developments in games, I think the Team has to improve on the graphics.

The maps are good for about another year, but I think you somehow have to improve the appearance and movements of the units.

Right now, they are kind of fuzzy, and their movements are herky jerky instead of smooth.

Explaining that improved unit graphics will demand too much of todays computers won't cut it. New players will gravitate to games with better graphics. If you don't have the resources in-Team, bring in a wizard or you'll get left behind in the marketplace quite quickly.

The other thing that players have been calling for is some kind of campaign system. With carryover. I recognize that could be difficult, because you would have to prepare battlefield maps for all the possible points of encounter, resulting from the almost randomness of the decisions of the player(s).

So historical campaigns/battles would be the easiest to start with. And maybe throw in a few more battle maps to account for variation in decision-making.

No Trees/open battlefields. Campaigns.

Sounds like the New Mexico Campaign, or the Peninsular Campaign/7 Days.

Historically, Fredericksburg would be painful to play, but it sure has a lot of what if's that could make it quite exciting.

And maybe the retreat from Gettysburg?

[35th Georgia]

I was wondering Rudy if you wanted fries with that? lol Seriously though I will stand in defense of the team as quite clearly it has been demonstrated that the game at it's highest demand is quite a pull on most systems being offered even today. There are always those who go back to older games that are more thought out in gameplay than flash and pomp.Norb always seeks to improve and listen to the players. They were the ones who listened and saw the need for SOW while calls for a game like it were ignored for the most part.SOW may not be for everyone but I believe you will find alot of folks who will strongly disagree with your opinion. There is no disrespect intended by my comments and you are intitled to how you feel.