Great Game But Could Use a Few Graphic Updates

[ericbabe]

The 'T' key can be used to hide trees.

The engine already has the capability to use 2D maps, though because of the limits of some (even modern) graphics cards with regard to maximum texture size, the ground texture looks a bit pixelated.

[Bison36]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

The 'T' key can be used to hide trees.

Cool. I was looking for a hot key in the manual and I didn't associate terrain with trees in the hot key listings. I might need to get more sleep. [:D]

[Sarkus]

ORIGINAL: Binko
I believe that is true in a general sense. But because Conflict Of Heroes is a much loved boardgame system I think you will find that a large percentage of your core audience will prefer 2D. In other words, the 3D might help sales to those who are going to buy it, play it for a bit and then move on. But the hardcore players who will be around for the long haul, buying expansions and supporting the game on forums, will be the ones who want want maximum clarity when it comes to the map. And that will generally mean 2D.

I think "large percentage" may be an exagerration. The admittedly unscientific poll about why people bought CoH shows only about 1/4 of the respondents identifying themselves as owners of the board game. As someone who got into wargaming back when boardgames were the only real option I do understand the interest in 2D and a "boardgame" feel. But at the same time a lot of us prefer the 3D, at least in some types of games. Ideally games would support both options. However, that takes time and development money and I understand the reasons why WC made the choices they did.

[robc04_1]

Just to throw my 2 cents into the ring. I am not a hard core wargamer or a board game wargamer, but I would prefer a 2D map if it meant the information was easier to determine (like LOS). The best case would be to support both of coarse. The 3D map looks nice, but for the majority of my play I stay pretty far zoomed out with an semi-overhead view. It would be really cool if the player could toggle between a 2D and 3D map.

[wodin]

Thing is when a game comes out with a 2D map everyone is up in arms about it not being the stone age and how they want 3D battlefields, been mentioned loads in forums I've seen it mentioned many times in the Command Ops forum. So they have given people what they always ask for, now they have everyone wants it 2D!

In the screenshots I notice the buildings and trees don't match the terrain, it looks like to different art styles. I did think it would have been better either to give them that hand drawn painted look like the boardgame, or should have done two versions altogether, a 3D one and a 2D one.

AI scripts sounds great and makes me very hopeful.

[RockKahn]

robc04. I toggle between Normal View and Top Down view all the time with the Change Camera button on the right. Is that what you mean?

[JFalk68]

Wodin, nice facebook page for tactical wargames, I just gave it a "like"

& I shared the Game of Thrones/Final Fantasy parody...too funny!

[robc04_1]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Thing is when a game comes out with a 2D map everyone is up in arms about it not being the stone age and how they want 3D battlefields, been mentioned loads in forums I've seen it mentioned many times in the Command Ops forum. So they have given people what they always ask for, now they have everyone wants it 2D!

Just to clarify..
It isn't that I want 2D maps, I just want an easier time determining LOS from all hexes. If that way involves a 2D map that is fine, but if that involves adding some functionality to the 3D maps that works for me. I was just trying to state that it is the functionality that is most important, not whether the map is 2D or 3D.

Something like this:
1) Put the game in LOS mode.
2) click on hex and set facing arrow (like movement works) to determine LOS from that hex.
3) The hexes that are within LOS turn yellow (to match the normal LOS color)

You don't even need to limit by a range. Just extend it out equal to the max sight range in the game. The player knows the range of the unit they are trying to determine the LOS for and can ignore the hexes out of that range. Heck, put a little range number in the hex so the player can easily see at a glance how many hexes away it is from their selected hex. I have no idea how feasible something like this would be to add to the game, but I think that would work for me with the 3D map.

[Lebatron]

I don't think having a long history with old board games has much to do with our preference for the Academy Games produced map boards over the PC's map. I could have been born yesterday and I would have been able to point out which map looks better before I could even say the word mommy. It's because Academy's map boards are so good that's why I want them used for my PC copy of the game and not because I'm some grognard that refuses to move into the future. Some seem to think that wanting 2D boards is some kind of backward looking personality defect. Take a look man. Take a good look at the top 2 boards for CoH AtB. Do they look dated to you? Below them I added an old school ASL map. Today's 2D when done right, done the Academy way, can't be beat. Just look at the close up. How could you argue against these 2D maps after seeing these????

The forth pic is proof of concept that the 2D board works well as a computerized translation. Notice the map tilt. It does not need to be top down. Here it is with a normal viewpoint like you would get sitting at the table playing it. This 40 degree slant is my preferred way of viewing the board.

[GJK]

Functionally for LOS determination, the ASL map works the best.

[junk2drive]

Hey Gary, good to see you around.

[JFalk68]

Great post Lebatron, I could not have said it better myself! +10!

You nailed it, escpecially with the 40% board tilt

[wodin]

I do agree the way the IPad CoH looked was alot better (the fanmade one that one of the pics was taken from). Taken straight from the boardgame. I just think they tired todo what alot of people ask for and thats do 3D maps, as HPS sims and pretty much every 2D wargame always has the same comments, we want better graphics and 3D maps. So they went and did it.

A mistake I feel.

How the game plays on the fanmade IPAD game I'm not sure, though the UI seemed very well made and streamlined and took up very little space. It had no AI I believe, but design wise it looked spot on. Wonder if the developers here looked at it and thought it looked good or even better visually then their design. I'm not saying this design is bad, just possibly could have been done slightly differently and not tried todo the 3D aspect. Just be able to tilt the whole 2D map like the Ipad game would have still been great as you'd get to judge greater distances.

Obviuosly there where alot more resources to put into the game and maybe this is what got in the way. If they had little resource like the fanmade Ipad game then they'd have stuck to 2D and copied the boardgame look totally.

JFalk, thanks for the comment on the FB page. My new admin has become a huge asset! He runs the Historical wargame page aswell, which I highly recommend (get the link in the likes section).

[robc04_1]

ORIGINAL: RockKahn

robc04. I toggle between Normal View and Top Down view all the time with the Change Camera button on the right. Is that what you mean?

I just meant that I usually play from a zoomed out view, using the wheel to zoom out, and occasionally zoom back in to get a closer look.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
Without a doubt it helps sell more copies. But when we (those that prefer 2D maps) are left without the choice to have it the way we wanted it seems very unfair. I do not think we are a tiny percent. We may even be the majority.

How many tactical 3D computer wargames have unit counters and a top down 2D map mode? I think using "unfair" is a bit over the top. The play style you would like already exists, it's just not exactly as you might have done it yourself. You would prefer a purely 2D map from an aesthetic point of view rather than a 2D top down view of a 3D map because you prefer the way it looks. That's fine and fair enough, but the game as it is does give you a 2D view of the same map and allows you the 40 degree view angle that you prefer as well. We also made sure to get the same artists that work on the 2D maps for COH to make the 3D map textures for us to get as close a match as possible. A key goal during development and now after release has been to support the board game community and make this the ideal Conflict of Heroes adaptation for the computer. We're not just aiming at computer wargamers here, we very much want board gamers to feel at home.

We are listening to requests and adding to our wish list - our goal is to make everyone a very happy customer. We're listening and will do our best to improve the game based on your requests.

Regards,

- Erik

[Binko]

Thanks Erik. I do believe that you guys are doing a great job of listening and I'm sure many improvements will follow. I've also seen you over on BoardgameGeek reaching out to the boardgame community and I approve.

This is the first computer wargame I've purchased in many years and I'm happy with the game and with my purchase. I just wanted to add my voice to those who would like improvements in the top-down view and the counters but I don't plan to harp on it.

Thanks much for the excellent communication and friendly discussions.

[BodyBag]

One of the selling points of the boardgame was the high quality of the counters and the great looking map.

In today's competitive market, it's not enough for a board- or videogame to have good gameplay, it has to look attractive too.
When you spend a lot of time playing a game, you want something that looks great, informative & realistic and contributes to immerse you in the subject matter.

I own "Storms of Steel" and are still impressed by the look of that game. I'm on the fence regarding your game though, but with some graphic improvements on the map and the 3D models, I am sure I'll be won over [;)]

We already know the gameplay is good, please make the graphics superior too...[:)]