Whats Next?

[rudy]

Do people here actually read and think before they get all huffy and type out a knee jerk response?

I said the map graphics are good.

I didn't compare the game to TW.

I didn't comment on the game mechanics because I think they are great already, and unique in the marketplace.

I said that the game graphics could be improved, because they are fuzzy close up. When I play a game, I zoom in and out so that I can manage my forces but also feel like I am living in the action of the moment. Because of the quality of the graphics for the new maps, I frequently zoom in on the leader I have TC'd just so that I can follow it through the beautiful terrain.

If you prefer the herky jerky unit movements to more fluid unit movements, then I am happy for you.

But both the unit resolution and unit movements can be improved on.

Look at the improvements the game team has achieved since the game first came out. Would you prefer that the game have remained unchanged since the beginning? There is always room for improvement, and to me, the area that the game could most benefit from improvement is in the graphics.

Remain calm. Progress, change and improvement are normal. And something to strive for. Not something to resist or avoid.

Have you heard of the term Luddites?

[Marching Thru Georgia]

Rudy wrote:

Have you heard of the term Luddites?

If we were, we wouldn't be conversing via the web.

You miss the point of our argument. For many of us, AI behavior is the critical element. All of us want Norb to continue improving on this great game. However, nearly all the requests are AI related. There are only so many program instructions that can be processed per second. If TW graphics take up more of those than the current antiquated graphics do, it means the AI can not perform at as high a level as it does now. That is a bad bargain for many of us. No one is opposed to better graphics, so long as the AI can also be improved and the graphics work doesn't take up so much of Norb's time, (he's the sole programmer), that he can't work on the AI.

[Jack ONeill]

MTG is right. It IS the gameplay, not the fancy colors, for most of us.
My previous comp was one I cobbled together from scrap I scrounged from my former employers cast-offs. I had to run the uniform settings on lowest just to get it to do anything. I didn't care. The gameplay rocked. The AI was (and still is) head and shoulders above anything out there. With the updates to it, on certain settings, it is really hard to beat, especially now that it is learning how to use Heavy Horse in a well-timed charge. (This would be the Lace Wars aspect.) I firmly believe Norb is building SkyNet in his spare time. LOL! Even if my comp was still crap, I'd play this with no problem, and minimal complaint. A perfect example is/was Cossacks II. I had played the original Cossacks series until my eyes bled. (At one point I was a consultant map-designer for them, off the books), Cossacks II had fantastic uniforms, great units, good graphics, etc. The gameplay sucked so badly, I wanted my money back.

So again, I say the trade-off is there. Fancy uniforms are a waste if the gameplay is boring. I want a challenge, not a paint job. This AI will serve well for quite a while yet.

Jack B)

[Saddletank]

Rudy, its good to have an exchange of different views and I'm sure Norb and the gang are reading their customers discussing the game, and taking on board various viewpoints, but when you begin to pepper your posts with snide remarks bordering on insults like "fanboy" and "kneejerk reaction" just because other forum members have different priorities to yours, you should be the one to pause and think. When you start being nasty to people we all know you've lost the argument, so take a pause and think about that please.

Of course better graphics would be nice for all of us, but I personally simply don't see them when my brain is working in "tactical problem solution mode" (aka I'm in a desperate battle) and as others have said the AI and the game play should be a higher priority of NSDs over graphics that add nothing to gameplay.

We definitely cannot have individual 3D model soldiers in a game like SoW and still have the huge armies and good AI, so NSD I am sure is always weighing up its options on that.

Its something like building a main battle tank; there's a choice between armour, hitting power and speed. Right now NSD have a tank that hits very hard, is lightning fast but has weak armour. However since there is no other tank on the baattlefiled the enemy has with more than a pea-shooter as its main gun, I'm happy with the weak armour we have right now.

[rudy]

Everyone has their own approach to this game.

I don't play or have an interest in "huge armies".

I'm more interested in smaller battles, say 10,000 - 15,000 per side.

And improved graphics.

Just like the recent improvement in horse graphics.

And the improvements in terrain for the maps. They are really great.

It's just coding and game engine improvements at the end of the day.

It can happen. So it will happen.

Oh, and I want campaign mode too.

Make it so, No. 1.

[Jolly]

www. warofrights. com

Looks like the Oblivion engine, and a mighty fine one it is. Maybe a bit costly though to develop.

[Jim]

They are using Cryengine 3 and this apparently limits them to a battle map that is roughly 2.8 x 1 miles. You can see their provisional Antietam map borders here.

Looking at the dates on their forum postings. They have been in development since sometime before May of 2012. The screenshots and video are quite pretty. So far they have not released any images of troops on the battlefield.

I will be very interested to see their solution to the performance vs soldier number problem. Hopefully they will be able to make it work and release a game.

-Jim

[Saddletank]

The website mentions "player models" so this looks like it'll be a first person black-powder shooter.

[Saddletank]

I don't play or have an interest in "huge armies".

I'm more interested in smaller battles, say 10,000 - 15,000 per side.

But NSD have pitched this game so that it can and needs to be able to support battles of 40k plus. That's what SoW does, so its engine has to support that many troops. Just because you don't want more than 15,000 a side doesn't mean others do not. It seems obvious Norb wants more and is designing games that deliver more.

And the improvements in terrain for the maps. They are really great.

You know these are just texture files, right?

It's just coding and game engine improvements

Do you realise what that statement covers? "Just" coding and "just" game engine improvements is what game development is. Game engines have their limits and simply cannot deliver things beyond their designed boundaries. I'm not suggesting that that's the case here but SoW in its current format isn't capable of supporting graphics very much more complex than what it does now because of everything else the game is grinding away doing, like running the AI.

Of course an SoWII project may come along one day and that will probably be a big leap forwards but I think SoWI has proven that aiming at excellent AI and gameplay is more important than aiming "just" at graphics.

[rudy]

"You know these are just texture files, right?"

Yes, I do. And the result is improvement in the graphic appearance of the game.

"SoW in its current format isn't capable of supporting graphics very much more complex than what it does now because of everything else the game is grinding away doing, like running the AI."

Why do you make statements like this? Anything can be improved. This game isn't at it's limit yet. Look back through this thread. Jim said:

"We have made some additional performance gains that should show up in the new generation "Next Battle". It is much too early in development to lay out any specific numbers but the early returns are promising."