twitter updates on SoP

[SeaMonkey]

I like the sound of that! Another question, did Wasteland make the map worth something? What I mean is that the game engine should support an inherent value for every hex. Now I'll be the first to acknowledge that every piece of land or sea, for that matter, doesn't have some strategic / economical value, but for the editor and user mods there should be a function that allows a value to be set for each hex.

For instance, ToW uses PPs as a monetary exchange for getting things done. Obviously hexes like deserts, swamps, and certain mountainous terrain would have the default 0 PP value. From there the designer would start setting values to farmland, perhaps 1 PP, mines, maybe 3 PP, oil fields, 5 PP, cities, industrial areas, ports and on and on.

What a system like this creates is an internal value for conquest where most of the map lends an incentive to defend and to take. Now, there will be a cost for not defending huge swaths of land, not taking a more forward position of deployment, completely undermining gamey actions of the players. In short, it represents the consequences of real life expansion and contraction.

To take it a step further, you could code a national policy for players' choice that enhances or detracts from the "monetary layer". Say a player chooses "scorched earth", then everytime a friendly hex in taken by the enemy the PP value drops to 0 and only slowly recovers over a period of time after the front lines have moved beyond that hex, the area has stabilized. Perhaps hexes that see no combat and or that are moved past quickly or abandoned would not have an appreciable resetting of their inherent value.

Now, taking inconjunction with the logistical/communication layer, you see the real life dynamics of an economical infrastructure start to unfold, one that can be easily disrupted by player actions.

Obviously a system like this will be somewhat difficult to code, another underlying layer, but during gameplay, even though it will have a very tangible effect on strategy, it will require very little from the players as far as actions, a KISS principle, and simple is always good.

[SeaMonkey]

Maps look great. Are y'all going to use the Scytth's counters? IMO they are amazing.

If gameplay crack ups to be good(especially naval), I'm speaking of strategic aspects(I know the operational features are outstanding), and the UI continues to improve, this will be a game of epic proportions.................of course until the global model is distributed.[;)]

Now...there seems to be a little complication in the unit density. Has there been any considerations for simplification? I don't want to spend hours pushing around those beautiful counters, even chocolate cake gets old.[:-]

[Anraz]

Maps look great.

Thank you. We make a point of creating accurate maps.

Are y'all going to use the Scytth's counters? IMO they are amazing.

That is why I posted them. BTW Scytth is one of co-founders of WI.

Has there been any considerations for simplification? I don't want to spend hours pushing around those beautiful counters[..]

Do you mean getting rid of some Chinese divisions?

[SeaMonkey]

No, I'm thinking of something more along a line of a buildup / breakdown system, although before I go any further this maybe too much for the AI.

Looking at ToW AARs, although there are large map areas and the unit density is acceptable, there still seems to be a lot of unit counters that need the players' attention. That in itself causes "turn fatigue" and when you get to the global version that commodity will be amplified. There is also the differences in scale from the European battlefields to the Pacific, where smaller formations were used more extensively.

So.. my suggestion is you create an "Army", "Airwing", "Fleet" holding unit, a basket, so to speak, that will contain all the units(number limited) under that command/commander, that can be moved as one, even used in combat as one. From that "Battlegroup" various units can be unattached for different missions around the globe and operate independently.

There could still be many units maneuvering around the map areas, but the logistical considerations(remember the "net") would allow only the smaller units in some locations and in others of good communications(European infrastructure) the larger "Battlegroups" would reside. Players would be more inclined to use the "BG" as it would be very potent in the proximity of enemy BGs where the smaller corps and division units would be easily crushed.

The net effect would be a cleaner, more orderly battlefield and the turns wouldn't be so time handicapped by players pushing units around.

[SeaMonkey]

Oh yeah, Wastelands guys, for all of our benefits(I've been reading the naval threads) please purchase a copy of SC PT and play it so you all get a feel where the dynamics of SOtP should start.

If you had done this before you would have been years ahead in this ToW venture and you wouldn't have to listen to all the solicitation for adjustments..................

............well ......at least they would be somewhat diminished.[:'(]

[micheljq]

Twitter and Facebook, I cannot reach those from the office.  Blocked by the WAN administrators as part of a policy in place.

[Anraz]

Hopefully there is always a chance to look at Twitter when you are at home

[SeaMonkey]

Nice feature......the editor............you guys definitely barking up the right tree.

[SeaMonkey]

For those of us that don't twitter, how about giving us a little insight on the functions of the "unit manager"

[doomtrader]

I shouldn't tell you too much but the unit manager will allow to check what units you have, what is their status.

[Anraz]

For those of you who don't use twitter...
The map of Asia (a separate scenario) http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/8387/asia4.png (the map is still in development, the screen is taken from the editor which will be added to the game )

and the terrain in the game will look like this:



and for those of you, who prefer the classic set of hexes http://screenup.pl/set/09-10/jqlkwyipr.png

[vonRocko]

Real pretty pictures! But if the AI is as bad as TOW, I'll pass. Previous posts and threads say the developers don't have many resources to commit to a decent AI. Well this is why. To much time and money spent on pretty pictures at the expense of doing the hard work needed for a good AI.
IMO

[Anraz]

You would be right, if the people who make graphics and maps could influence AI performance or if AI programmers and scriptwriters did the graphic content (instead of coding...) Those things are separated, at least in our case. Also if the cost of pretty and ugly things is the same, why choose the ugly ones?

And this nasty AI... Those who really have the resources, do not bother...

[vonRocko]

ORIGINAL: Anraz



And this nasty AI... Those who really have the resources, do not bother...

I have to agree with you there.
I know I'll buy the game anyhow (that's one of my problems),so please try your best.
Thanks

[Anraz]

please try your best

Believe or not, but we try our best so I`m sure it will be even better game than ToW.

[Tomokatu]

Looking promising, Anraz.
Of course, I'm already committed because the theatre has been neglected and there are those personal/family connections, too.

[SeaMonkey]

Game is looking good, but for us PBEM fans can you give us a "ballpark" estimate about how long it may take a player to complete a turn with all belligerents at war?

[AH4Ever]

ORIGINAL: Anraz

Believe or not, but we try our best so I`m sure it will be even better game than ToW.

Will any of your hard work and best efforts put into developing SOP, benefit ToW somewhere along the line?

[Anraz]

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

Game is looking good, but for us PBEM fans can you give us a "ballpark" estimate about how long it may take a player to complete a turn with all belligerents at war?

It is very good question, also it is a very difficult question to answer, because it depends on size of scenario (while playing Iwo Jima a few minutes is enough to complete a turn, but while playing the biggest campaign it requires much more time) and a player's way of playing (personally I prefer to spent less time and plying dynamically, even if some moves aren't smartest ones, while other players favor chess like style of playing). I think everyone will find what please him best.

ORIGINAL: AH4Ever

ORIGINAL: Anraz Believe or not, but we try our best so I`m sure it will be even better game than ToW.

Will any of your hard work and best efforts put into developing SOP, benefit ToW somewhere along the line?

Yes, one way or another way...

[sjorsl88]

Is a complete world map scenario with both games merged be possible in the future?

And if not, is it limited by the game engine, pc hardware or something else?[:)]