Here are four things to increase the battle immersiveness, and give the player more emotional payoff for his many hours/minutes of advance, pre-battle planning and maneuvering:
--Show total forces engaged as actual head counts, not just the casualties. And give a casualty breakdown. (For example: "Union 68,419 engaged, 1,288 killed, 5,492 wounded, 992 captured, 573 missing, 8,345 total casualties. Confederate ...")
--Play a greater variety of battle sounds, especially the cries (more than just the same old, same old "Charrrrrge!" or "Retreat!").
--Leave the player in suspense a while longer. That is, play the battle sounds, and delay displaying the battle results, for 30 seconds to a minute (varies by the size of the battle), not just after 2-10 seconds.
--And most importantly: Give a textual running commentary on the battle, with a second or two between comments. (For example: "General Jackson's forces attack... Union 2nd corps panic and route... King's division arrives as reinforcements... Fierce hand-to-hand combat in the center... Gibbon's brigade mauled...") Make this moddable, so that your user community can add variety and spice up the in-battle comments to their heart's content. (That is, make an endlessly expandable database of battle comments, with hooks to the underlying statistics.)
Without going tactical/graphical (which is besides the point in a game like this), how really hard would the above be to add (for all your games, not just AACW)?
[also posted at the Matrix Forum]
I don't know...I would prefer to NOT have a battle last for a minute just for the suspense of it. I would rather it be quick and over with and if you want to see a break down of what happened maybe include a summary of the battle as you mentioned at conclusion.
I see no need to take a whole minute to display something that can be shown in a few seconds for the sake of suspense, it would only result in aggrevation and a bathroom break for me if it took that long.
Since you have no direct control over what happens on the actual battlefield there is no need to take longer than need be. I think it would be cool to see who attacked who, when, where, how much damage, retreats, wounded, and so on but I am not sure the engine in its current form actually determines the outcome in a way that would make that possible.
I see no need to take a whole minute to display something that can be shown in a few seconds for the sake of suspense, it would only result in aggrevation and a bathroom break for me if it took that long.
Since you have no direct control over what happens on the actual battlefield there is no need to take longer than need be. I think it would be cool to see who attacked who, when, where, how much damage, retreats, wounded, and so on but I am not sure the engine in its current form actually determines the outcome in a way that would make that possible.
To each his own, I always say.
Make the (a) casualty breakdown, (b) time delay, (c) in-battle comments user selectable options.
My suggestions are just in reaction to the fence sitters who tend to favor FOF over AACW. They have a point: AACW's battles could be more immersive.
As for myself, I don't want or need a tactical engine tacked on to AACW. But I (my optional choice!) would prefer somewhat more immersiveness.
Make the (a) casualty breakdown, (b) time delay, (c) in-battle comments user selectable options.
My suggestions are just in reaction to the fence sitters who tend to favor FOF over AACW. They have a point: AACW's battles could be more immersive.
As for myself, I don't want or need a tactical engine tacked on to AACW. But I (my optional choice!) would prefer somewhat more immersiveness.
I agree with Guru80; no point in having the battles last for a minute just for the sake of it. Having some more numbers for the battle (how many soldiers, etc) wouldn't hurt, but it's not important to me compared to other things I'd like to see in AACW.
That said, I see what you mean; the battles are very much a numbers presentation as it is now (which it must've been for people not on the battlefield, when you think of it). One thing to do could be to present all the log information pertaining to the battle along with the battle result, rather than having to look it up in the log afterwards (i.e. have it in both places).
That said, I see what you mean; the battles are very much a numbers presentation as it is now (which it must've been for people not on the battlefield, when you think of it). One thing to do could be to present all the log information pertaining to the battle along with the battle result, rather than having to look it up in the log afterwards (i.e. have it in both places).
--And most importantly: Give a textual running commentary on the battle, with a second or two between comments. (For example: "General Jackson's forces attack... Union 2nd corps panic and route... King's division arrives as reinforcements... Fierce hand-to-hand combat in the center... Gibbon's brigade mauled...") Make this moddable, so that your user community can add variety and spice up the in-battle comments to their heart's content. (That is, make an endlessly expandable database of battle comments, with hooks to the underlying statistics.)
I would definitely like more battle feedback.
Information related to player decisions would be very useful in explaining game process. For example, Stonewall attack is less effective due to deep mud. Hooker's strong defense based on the hill line holds. Or Tylers division marches to the sound of guns using the railroads...or marched rapidly through clear countryside arriving in the beginning, middle or towards the end of the battle. Bees highly experienced troops hold against overwhelming attacks by conscripts.
Information focused on critical battle factors would help players learn which factors actually impact battle results.
berto wrote:Here are four things to increase the battle immersiveness, and give the player more emotional payoff for his many hours/minutes of advance, pre-battle planning and maneuvering:
--Show total forces engaged as actual head counts, not just the casualties. And give a casualy breakdown. (For example: "Union 68,419 engaged, 1,288 killed, 5,492 wounded, 992 captured, 573 missing, 8,345 total casualties. Confederate ...")
--Play a greater variety of battle sounds, especially the cries (more than just the same old, same old "Charrrrrge!" or "Retreat!").
--Leave the player in suspense a while longer. That is, play the battle sounds, and delay displaying the battle results, for 30 seconds to a minute (varies by the size of the battle), not just after 2-10 seconds.
--And most importantly: Give a textual running commentary on the battle, with a second or two between comments. (For example: "General Jackson's forces attack... Union 2nd corps panic and route... King's division arrives as reinforcements... Fierce hand-to-hand combat in the center... Gibbon's brigade mauled...") Make this moddable, so that your user community can add variety and spice up the in-battle comments to their heart's content. (That is, make an endlessly expandable database of battle comments, with hooks to the underlying statistics.)
Without going tactical/graphical (which is besides the point in a game like this), how really hard would the above be to add (for all your games, not just AACW)?
[also posted at the Matrix Forum]
I like a lot your first and last ideas!!
I think i posted something a looong time ago about using real numbers instead of pwr ON EVERYTHING.
The computer can use "pwr" and "hits" values for her calculations but i'm playing as the commander and should see my forces and the enemy ones ONLY as real men/guns numbers.
Jsut like REAL commanders!!
It seems the relation pwr-actual men is there on the game, but its kept hidden. You only see it on casualties and pressing ctrl.
Don´t know why, because for immersion and realism sakes, it should be [font="Arial Black"]Just the opposite[/font]. Real numbers everywhere and pwr only when you press ctrl and want to be a little gamey
About your the last idea, Berto, i think is similar to what Ageod is planning to do in the future, with the expanding the battle reviews.
But your idea of using comments instead of only cold statistics is very very nice!
Cheers!!
Rafiki wrote:I agree with Guru80; no point in having the battles last for a minute just for the sake of it...
No point for you; it is a point for others.
Some might just as well argue: Let's do away with any delay whatsoever. Whether small cavalry skirmish or three-day Gettysburg bloodfest, just report battle results instantly (or as fast as the computer can calculate the outcome), without any voice-over commentary, battle sound effects, etc.
(And I don't know about you, but hearing the same "Charrrrrge!" and "Retreat!" in so many battles is a bit grating. It would be less annoying if there were greater variety; else do without the voiceover entirely.)
For what it's worth, and from what I know, I think that AACW is the better Civil War simulation than FOF hands down. But I am disturbed to see that, at least measuring by forum activity, FOF seems to be much more the popular game. I think the biggest reason for that is that many players--not you!!--hunger for greater battle immersiveness, greater emotional payoff for all their hard gaming "work".
Whatever, make everything optional!
Forge of Freedom looks fantastic! Never heard of it before but than again I found this game on accident as well and am SO glad I did.
From what it looks like after a quick review both do their own thing excellently. I didn't completely disagree with you above, I just think the entire combat system (from a visual standpoint and statistics) would have to be completely revamped...maybe it would be an improvement, maybe it wouldn't.
After checking out FoF though I am very intrigued by the battles, the way it keeps a combat log of all the battles and stats, the governor system and so on. I haven't played it yet so I don't know how it translates into game play but since it received wargame of the year award it must be pretty decent.
If I get drawn into that game like I have this one my kids are going to become orphans ;-)
From what it looks like after a quick review both do their own thing excellently. I didn't completely disagree with you above, I just think the entire combat system (from a visual standpoint and statistics) would have to be completely revamped...maybe it would be an improvement, maybe it wouldn't.
After checking out FoF though I am very intrigued by the battles, the way it keeps a combat log of all the battles and stats, the governor system and so on. I haven't played it yet so I don't know how it translates into game play but since it received wargame of the year award it must be pretty decent.
If I get drawn into that game like I have this one my kids are going to become orphans ;-)
Rafiki wrote:That said, I see what you mean; the battles are very much a numbers presentation as it is now (which it must've been for people not on the battlefield, when you think of it)...
Well, actually, no.
Commanders would send dispatches (usually claiming impending victory, else making excuses for impending defeat) to Washington and Richmond mid-battle.
Also, newspaper and magazine reporters were on hand to provide narrative, to embellish what otherwise would be just dry statistics for their readers. Lincoln and Davis (and other decision makers like Halleck, etc.) were newspaper and magazine readers, too, of course.
Guru80 wrote:Forge of Freedom looks fantastic! Never heard of it before but than again I found this game on accident as well and am SO glad I did... If I get drawn into that game like I have this one my kids are going to become orphans ;-)
Pity your kids, but brace yourselves: 2 by 3 Games (http://2by3games.com/; see the News & Info, Dev's Journal) is reported to be working on yet another strategic/operational level Civil War simulation.
When it rains it pours...
Wow, possibly 3 absolutely wonderful Civil War games within the last year and I just found all of them this last week or 2!
I have never found a Civil War game I truly enjoye until this one (AACW) and now FoF and War Between the States by 2 by 3 games...it's a Civil War Bonanza!
Hopefully that means the WWII theme has finally worn out and a new theater is needed. WWII is by far the most produced war game and some absolutely amazing games have came from it (HOI for instance) and tons of mediocore to terrible ones.
After finding these forums I am an Ageod's customer for life and can't wait until NC is released!!!! Not many developers still maintain this dedicated to their customers since the raise in popularity of console games.
Back on subject now ;-)
I have never found a Civil War game I truly enjoye until this one (AACW) and now FoF and War Between the States by 2 by 3 games...it's a Civil War Bonanza!
Hopefully that means the WWII theme has finally worn out and a new theater is needed. WWII is by far the most produced war game and some absolutely amazing games have came from it (HOI for instance) and tons of mediocore to terrible ones.
After finding these forums I am an Ageod's customer for life and can't wait until NC is released!!!! Not many developers still maintain this dedicated to their customers since the raise in popularity of console games.
Back on subject now ;-)
Guru80 wrote:Wow, possibly 3 absolutely wonderful Civil War games within the last year and I just found all of them this last week or 2!
I have never found a Civil War game I truly enjoye until this one (AACW) and now FoF and War Between the States by 2 by 3 games...it's a Civil War Bonanza!
Hopefully that means the WWII theme has finally worn out and a new theater is needed. WWII is by far the most produced war game and some absolutely amazing games have came from it (HOI for instance) and tons of mediocore to terrible ones.
After finding these forums I am an Ageod's customer for life and can't wait until NC is released!!!! Not many developers still maintain this dedicated to their customers since the raise in popularity of console games.
Back on subject now ;-)
And to realize for years and years and years, there were no good ACW strategic games. The best was Frank Hunter's ACW from way back when.
And the same is true of strategic Napoleonics.
Amazing how long for two such obvious subjects to finally receive attention.
Jagger wrote:And to realize for years and years and years, there were no good ACW strategic games. The best was Frank Hunter's ACW from way back when.
And the same is true of strategic Napoleonics.
Amazing how long for two such obvious subjects to finally receive attention.
Yeah I hear you. I have looked and looked and played every civil war game out there and never found one that excited me. I can't get enough of AACW and have already logged way to many hours as it is and won't be letting up anytime soon ;-)
Hopefully Pocus will respond but I would love to know if there is a way to incorporate a log of battles along with all the stats. Also, as mentioned above, actual display of men lost to disease, those wounded in battle, how many deserted and so on.
Nothing wrong with borrowing ideas from other successful games in the same catagory, happens all the time. Additional statistics would be wonderful.
The next step for us is to provide people with a detailed account of what happen in battles. A log with the actions of each regiments (but you can also look at a higher level if you prefer).
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Return to “Help to improve AACW!”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests