A comment/question about unit graphics

[gunnergoz]

I'm really looking forward to this game and all indications are that it will be a classic. And I also want to make clear that my comments are not meant to be anything but constructive observations, made without having played the game. I trust the Matrix team is out to make the best possible game that is quality and fun combined. This is a given and for that I'm truly grateful and beholden to you.

But I must say I have some personal reservations about the unit graphics...given that I'm looking at a beta and all that (and how many companies let you see their betas, let alone AAR them?).

Specifically, the single unit symbol on the region leaves a bit to be desired to me. It does not convey much information and the numbers below, while cogently conveying data, do little to impress one with the weight of numbers, power projection and force that they imply. Is there no way to come up with unit symbols that can both convey identity and mass? Including, perhaps, battle-worthiness?

I'm willing to give up some cute soldier/tank icons in exchange for some functional display of unit values and utility.

I don't have any major suggestions, unfortunately, other than the tried and true "strength bars" or some system of numbers of component images in an icon to display strength or quantity of troops...like using three soldiers to represent a full army vs one to represent a corps, etc. I could see the otherwise cute icons having some utility there.

Alternately, we could go with standard NATO unit symbols or even WW2 German ones for the grogs who must have such things. Those symbols are logical, easily learned, and can convey a heap of information at a glance when coupled with other symbolic references to combat readiness, supply level, etc.

I realize that the goal might be to simplify the game to its essentials, but there is a level of simplification that becomes counter-productive in what is supposed to be a strategic simulation of global war.

[wodin]

I think the units are displayed this way as it is being aimed at a larger audience than hard core grognards. For that game look at WiF.This is an assumption as it has been stated that this is the only game which will go retail.

This isnt a full on grognards game it is more a game for all. From those who have played Risk and Axis and Allies boardgames through to the more technical wargamer who wants a bit more detail but isnt looking for something like WiTP.

I personally like the units graphics as then I have a choice. I can buy a game like WiTP which is obviuosly hardcore or go for a more sedate game like WaW which appeals at a different level.

Yes more info about the units would be nice but maybe a popup will show up when you place the cursor over it.

What could be done is make the unti graphics look less cute. More photo realistic.

[Oleg Mastruko]

I was somewhat sceptical towards unit graphics at first but it's actually very usable and I have no (major) complaints.

Bear in mind some (if not most?) unit graphics will be changed in the future, although I can't say how much. For instance I'd bet Allied CV air graphics will be changed.

The "one unit" you see is not really important - in many wargames you usually see only the top unit in the stack, and if you want to check what's really in a hex (or area) you have to browse thru units manually (ie. by clicking). In WAW players mostly use top-screen "table" showing all the units in the area in very usable and informative manner.

O.

[paullus99]

A note to everyone - these graphics are still in beta as well. Graphical enhancements are being added as we test....so the final product will be as polished as possible.

[Rummy]

Gunnergoz effectively described a concern I've had with the game since seeing its first screenshot, namely that it just doesn't 'look' like the player is commanding armies and navies in WWII.

I know this is a bit of a stretch, but when I play a strategic wargame, I want to feel like I'm actually commanding units in battle. I want the map to look like the kind of map used by a general in the war. I want the units to look like the kind of representations used by commanders in the war. The feel and authenticity of the interface is important to me.

Games like Uncommon Valor, Operational Art of War, the V for Victory series, and even Hearts of Iron just felt authentic and real.

WAW, at first glance, feels more like a game.

I like Gunnergoz's suggestions, especially the option of using NATO symbols. I also think that making the counters smaller would help too. Having a battleship the size of Italy off the Italian coast just looks and feels weird. Make it smaller with a pop up info screen that appears when the mouse is placed over it. Ditto with the air units

I understand it's probably too late for this, and I'm definitely buying the game regardless, but I think these suggestions would help it appear to a broader audience.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Rummy

Gunnergoz effectively described a concern I've had with the game since seeing its first screenshot, namely that it just doesn't 'look' like the player is commanding armies and navies in WWII.

I know this is a bit of a stretch, but when I play a strategic wargame, I want to feel like I'm actually commanding units in battle. I want the map to look like the kind of map used by a general in the war. I want the units to look like the kind of representations used by commanders in the war. The feel and authenticity of the interface is important to me.

Games like Uncommon Valor, Operational Art of War, the V for Victory series, and even Hearts of Iron just felt authentic and real.

This game is not like TOAW, UV or WITP. Totally different breed. To some wargaming outsider they may all seem similar, but for us wargame veterans it's quite obvious they are not. I DO expect this game to be more popular than those mentioned, but it's not to say any on the games mentioned is worse than any other (I love *all* mentioned games, and have played them all very very intensively).

I assume that there is going to be fairly huge crowd that will love both UV/TOAW AND WAW, but WAW is so much different that there will be many players who'll love only WAW (not operational level "pure wargames" like UV/TOAW)

It is my opinion NATO symbols would not fit very well in this game. Anyhow, WAW is very moddable, and it won't be no problem for "NATO symbol crowd" to make their graphical mod. I bet most of you will actually agree with me once you try the game, though [:D]

O.

[VI66_slith]

Hi!

I think it looks great. I have WiTP and UV and love them both. I have no dought I will love this game equally, and frankly a change in game presentation and play will be refreshing after long hours spent in the vast expanses of the Pacific.

[gunnergoz]

Well, I can understand that this game is aimed at a different crowd than your usual strategic epic that Matrix excels at, but I don't see where unit icon graphics that are configurable on the fly would an impediment to entry-level user playability and enjoyment. "Lite" players can use one set and "Leet" players can use the other. [:D] Of course, it is probably too late in the program development process to expect to see configurations that are changeable on the fly, but I am VERY gratified to read that the graphics will be modifiable via editor. I know that those who also want to see what I'm looking for, will soon enough solve the problem with imagination and a bit of keyboard sweat. Matrix is to be commended for making the game moddable, and I am indeed satisfied with this answer.