Bigger graphics for older eyes?

[benpark]

Will there be a graphical upgrade to these particular games? I always had a miserable time seeing what was what in 3d mode-hoping this gets a re-tool. An approach like Tin Soldiers uses (a table-top look) would be tops in my book.

Also wondering if all of the dialog boxes will be removed for something onscreen.

I'm mostly wondering Matrix will do these, as HPS titles could be viewed as having the same lineage. Hopefully, these will be made to look better and have an AI that will outshine those titles.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: benpark
I'm mostly wondering Matrix will do these, as HPS titles could be viewed as having the same lineage. Hopefully, these will be made to look better and have an AI that will outshine those titles.

I agree those are the improvements that are needed. To be honest, while I find the idea of the Grigsby titles and TOAW to be mouth-watering indeed, and might even be tempted by DG or EF2, I can't really see the point with the Battleground titles. Even with worse (believe it or not) graphics and sub-par AI the HPS games are far superior, and an awful lot more fun.

[Le Tondu]

While I wish only the best for Matrix, I am forced to agree with Hertston. The HPS games while very similar are several leagues above the BG games. Only a total rewrite of the tactical engine will make them any better, IMHO.

[lancerunolfsson]

I buy HPS games too they are diferent not better. Because of the PBEM double file swap problem I play HPS PBEM, but only BG Hot seat or solitaire.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson

I buy HPS games too they are diferent not better. Because of the PBEM double file swap problem I play HPS PBEM, but only BG Hot seat or solitaire.

Just curious, why do you find BG preferable for solitaire play? Personally, I find the revised engine far less clumsy, and smoother and quicker to play, while not losing any aspect of realism. And the campaign options are vastly improved, as are the numbers of scenarios.

If I was John Tiller I think I would find it rather depressing that anybody thought the HPS games were merely 'different' and not 'better', considering they are direct evolution of the BG series. Whether that remains true with any improved version Matrix put out remains to be seen!

[lancerunolfsson]

I find the revised engine far less clumsy, and smoother and quicker to play, while not losing any aspect of realism.

I find that seperate move, fire, Melee phases in BG are actualy MORE realistic. If you consider the way lines can be broken and exploited in a single turn in HPS games(Most egregious in the Early American Wars series). This makes NAPOLEONIC games flow in HPS more like WWII. Does it make for a fun game yes!! Does it make for a LINEAR warfare game? Well not so much as the seperate phases. Not to mention the BG games look A LOT better than the HPS games. Though there are a couple of real good features in the 2d on the HPS games eg easier to determine facing and formation of units.

[Le Tondu]

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson

I find that seperate move, fire, Melee phases in BG are actualy MORE realistic. If you consider the way lines can be broken and exploited in a single turn in HPS games(Most egregious in the Early American Wars series). This makes NAPOLEONIC games flow in HPS more like WWII. Does it make for a fun game yes!! Does it make for a LINEAR warfare game? Well not so much as the seperate phases. Not to mention the BG games look A LOT better than the HPS games. Though there are a couple of real good features in the 2d on the HPS games eg easier to determine facing and formation of units.

The real funny thing is, this is not a problem any longer when you have a we-go game.

Gone are all the weirdnesses of a turn based game. I understand folks like them and that's allright with me. Resistence to change, even if that chnage is to something better, is nothing new in our world.

I will be looking at the BG series and checking out what improvements are made and basing my decision to purchase them on that factor. I hope that there are a lot of improvements.
[:)]

[rhondabrwn]

I agree that the old BG units are a bit hard to see sometimes, but the fact that they are in scale with the terrain and buildings adds a stronger sense of realism for me. I play Campaigns Gettysburg and Shiloh because I love the campaign elements, but I really do not get the same sense of immersion that I do with the older titles.

If you replaced the BG unit icons with larger ones, you would destroy one of my big reasons for liking the series.

For the older eyes... well, I keep a pair of reading glasses at my computer for that very reason [:D]

Oh yea... and a 21 inch monitor [:)]

[lancerunolfsson]

The real funny thing is, this is not a problem any longer when you have a we-go game.

We go has a lot of advantages. Unfortuantely the only games I have seen it in are Combat mission and the Old Atomic 360 games both of which I dislike for reasons having nothing to do with the WEGO format.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

I agree that the old BG units are a bit hard to see sometimes, but the fact that they are in scale with the terrain and buildings adds a stronger sense of realism for me. I play Campaigns Gettysburg and Shiloh because I love the campaign elements, but I really do not get the same sense of immersion that I do with the older titles.

If you replaced the BG unit icons with larger ones, you would destroy one of my big reasons for liking the series.

For the older eyes... well, I keep a pair of reading glasses at my computer for that very reason [:D]

Oh yea... and a 21 inch monitor [:)]

I agree.

[rich12545]

ORIGINAL: lancerunolfsson

The real funny thing is, this is not a problem any longer when you have a we-go game.

We go has a lot of advantages. Unfortuantely the only games I have seen it in are Combat mission and the Old Atomic 360 games both of which I dislike for reasons having nothing to do with the WEGO format.

Another wego is TacOps,a modern tactical game, marketed by the same company. I love cm but never could get interested in tacops even though it has wego also.

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: wodin

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

I agree that the old BG units are a bit hard to see sometimes, but the fact that they are in scale with the terrain and buildings adds a stronger sense of realism for me. I play Campaigns Gettysburg and Shiloh because I love the campaign elements, but I really do not get the same sense of immersion that I do with the older titles.

If you replaced the BG unit icons with larger ones, you would destroy one of my big reasons for liking the series.

For the older eyes... well, I keep a pair of reading glasses at my computer for that very reason [:D]

Oh yea... and a 21 inch monitor [:)]

I agree.

Simple solution: make the hexes bigger, the terrain bigger, and the units bigger [:D]

[lancerunolfsson]

I love cm but never could get interested in tacops even though it has wego also.

Tac Ops is a Game I really want to like. I have tried several times to play through the DEMO. But I can not even begin to figure out how to do a move in the thing. The old Atomic 360 Games are very nice system wise but I did not like any of the scenarios in Verlyke Lukie which was the only one I had.

[pad152]

Well Rising Sun is all but unplayable on laptops because of the graphics and colors. You just can't see the units from the hexes in 3D mode.

[lancerunolfsson]

Well Rising Sun is all but unplayable on laptops because of the graphics and colors. You just can't see the units from the hexes in 3D mode.

Hmm Bases on or 2d mode should fix your problem.

[pad152]

Hmm Bases on or 2d mode should fix your problem.

Well it always seemed that you could always get a better view of terrian hight in the 3D mode!

[lancerunolfsson]

Well it always seemed that you could always get a better view of terrian hight in the 3D mode!

Yeah the 3d is handy for a quick double check but I have found in snow games especialy just turning HEX CONTOURS in in the 3d mode removes most ambiguity. Just leving the hex grid on has pretty the same effect

[pjsynnott]

Graphic update suggestion for isometric view (pure "chrome" alert!):

Selectable leader graphics with one or more officer figures depending on command level e.g. brigade commanders represented by one mounted figure, divisional commanders represented by two, etc.

and...

Selectable "special" graphics for more individualistic generals e.g. Wellington in a blue coat/cloak, Napoleon in a greay coat, Picton in civvies, a fat-looking Kutuzov and outlandish Murat, etc.

Pure eye-candy, I admit but it would add to the atmosphere.

P