Great Game But Could Use a Few Graphic Updates

[Binko]

I'm basically a board wargamer. I bought CoH for the PC yesterday and I'm very happy with it. The AI seems a little weak. The fact that it can't really play the Germans means that it is not a robust and flexible AI. But that's not too important since, once I learn the ropes, I see this as primarily a game to played against human opponents.

I love that CoH PC stays so true to it's boardgame roots. But I wish it would be even more true. My primary desire would be to see a true 2D battlefield using the beautiful boardgame graphics. I know it's pretty much obligatory to have little 3D soldiers and a 3D map in a game that hopes to appeal to computer wargamers. But, in this case, the 3D adds absolutely nothing to the gameplay except LOS ambiguity and visual clutter.

A true 2D option would be a great thing but I accept that CoH PC will most likely remain a 3D game. In that case the 3D graphics need a couple of improvements.

1) It's incredibly hard to see the hills with the shader turned on. I have to turn the shader to simple just to get the hills to stand out from the open ground and this really decreases the overall appearance.

2) The counter graphics should be higher resolution and the shadows under the counters should have rounded corners like the counters do.

3) I use a high resolution monitor and I would really prefer that less of the screen be obscured by the interface elements. It would be very nice to be able to scale the interface so that all the interface elements shrink relative to the screen.

I'm enjoying the game very much and am happy I bought it. Once I become more more familiar with it I look forward to jumping into the multi-player. I only wanted to get my voice out there for these few graphic updates, especially in the hills and counters, that could hopefully be added to the future development list.

[ioticus]

+1. I agree with everything you said except I would replace the "AI seems a little weak" to "AI is very weak".

[wodin]

I hope the AI gets improvement over time. I'm going to hold off from buying as I'd never play multiplayer. From what I've read so far it seems people are soon beating the AI after a couple of goes.

Not sure how the AI is programmed and whether it's one of those games where scenario makers can make it give a good fight like say they do in CMBN. A great scenario maker can get the AI to punish you in the game, a poor one and the AI will be a walk over. It does sound to me though that that sort of clever scenario design and multi plans for the AI isn't possible in CoH.

Squad Battles AI improved overtime and Red Victory it's not bad. Especially on the defense, like many games this is the case I suppose, but like I said on the whole the AI has improved overtime.

Fingers crossed in a few patches or expansions I start to see some good comments about the AI and I will then buy the game. If I was the type of gamer who enjoyed multiplayer then I'd have no problem.

[Lebatron]

There is hope though for much better AI. Eric has created a very flexible script for modders to play with. Given time I think some guys here will take up the challenge to make some great scripts and home brew scenarios.

On the visual side of things I completely agree. Personally, if I was the dev I would have made the game using the board games maps. And the 2nd edition boards are even better. See them online. They are fraken awesome. The newer ones could have been ported in right at the last minute because they were done months ago. So the updated boards could have went into the PC version before it went gold. All it would have taken was a simple swap out of what we were using during beta for the new boards. That is of coarse assuming the devs had used the board games boards in the first place and not tried to reinvent the wheel by doing their own map graphics, and after many hours of dev time created something that imo looks poor compared to the original boards.

It's my hope that for SoS WCS gives us the option to play with the real boards. I bet it would be super popular.

Now I here that Academy Games is having it newest effort Gettysburg ported to PC as well. Its game boards are awesome as well. Sadly, I have a feeling the same thing is going to happen. The PC dev will not use the beautiful game boards and waste development time pushing a 3D map that many actually don't want.

[ioticus]

I also think they should have an option to tone down or eliminate the crater graphics after an artillery strike which does nothing but obscure the terrain below it.

[JFalk68]

+1 Binko,

I agree with everything you say, but before I add my 2 cents I just want to say so far I am pleased with the game. All the elements of the board game are here and there is some activity from the devs and Matrix personel so you can tell that they are fully behind this product. I am so glad this game came out to the PC, after waiting for Hero's of Stalingrad to appear for years. THANK YOU for making this board game into a PC game!!!
With that said:

-Yes, I would love to high resolution counters
-A more boardgame look to the maps, maybe something an artistic modder could do?

ORIGINAL: Binko

I'm basically a board wargamer. I bought CoH for the PC yesterday and I'm very happy with it. The AI seems a little weak. The fact that it can't really play the Germans means that it is not a robust and flexible AI. But that's not too important since, once I learn the ropes, I see this as primarily a game to played against human opponents.

I love that CoH PC stays so true to it's boardgame roots. But I wish it would be even more true. My primary desire would be to see a true 2D battlefield using the beautiful boardgame graphics. I know it's pretty much obligatory to have little 3D soldiers and a 3D map in a game that hopes to appeal to computer wargamers. But, in this case, the 3D adds absolutely nothing to the gameplay except LOS ambiguity and visual clutter.

A true 2D option would be a great thing but I accept that CoH PC will most likely remain a 3D game. In that case the 3D graphics need a couple of improvements.

1) It's incredibly hard to see the hills with the shader turned on. I have to turn the shader to simple just to get the hills to stand out from the open ground and this really decreases the overall appearance.

2) The counter graphics should be higher resolution and the shadows under the counters should have rounded corners like the counters do.

3) I use a high resolution monitor and I would really prefer that less of the screen be obscured by the interface elements. It would be very nice to be able to scale the interface so that all the interface elements shrink relative to the screen.

I'm enjoying the game very much and am happy I bought it. Once I become more more familiar with it I look forward to jumping into the multi-player. I only wanted to get my voice out there for these few graphic updates, especially in the hills and counters, that could hopefully be added to the future development list.

[Lebatron]

ORIGINAL: JFalk68

+1 Binko,

... All the elements of the board game are here and there is some activity from the devs and Matrix personel so you can tell that they are fully behind this product. I am so glad this game came out to the PC, after waiting for Hero's of Stalingrad to appear for years. THANK YOU for making this board game into a PC game!!!

It's only because I love CoH that I'm so critical. But ya the devs are working hard to make it better. And to their credit they are listening. If enough people feel as I do I'm sure we'll get what we want. Case in point, I got very vocal about the need to have the original AP system patched in and what do you know they are working on it right now. It pays to bitch[:D]

[JFalk68]

Good job Lebatron!

I took a peek in the lobby last night and saw you there, maybe we can get a game going sometime...but take it easy on me, I only just started figuring out the Monsters tutorial

[major.pain]

I was thinking along the same lines, whether it would be possible to redo the maps in the editor so the buildings, trees ect are added to the hex as a graphic instead of a 3D model.
You can disable the map models during a game with the "T" key so i imagine the attributes are tied to the hex and not the 3D model on the hex.

[mh1066]

In general I agree with the observations regarding the visuals of the game design. The 3D perspective is worthless for actual gameplay and I find myself only using the top-down view. And the kicker is, in this view the game chits are mostly unreadable so that you have to use the stat bar to know the unit values anyway (generic blue and red squares with LMG, RIF, etc designation would have served as much good). Speaking of the HUD, I don't understand why so much screen real estate is used so ineffective? I spend most my time toggling the HUD off and on just to see a larger portion of the map. Don't get me wrong, I love the game and have waited a long time for a true tactics Wargamer like ASL to be brought to the PC. I can't help thinking THIS is the game's audience...I wonder if the designers really undertook this?

[Binko]

I'm primarily a board wargamer. I mostly play ASL but I dabble in other systems for fun. I've played the CoH boardgames a few times and enjoyed them. But my limited Face To Face play time is reserved for ASL so I'm not looking for more boardgames.

CoH PC is a great light game. And a great supplement to my boardgame focus. I really enjoy the way it models all the boardgame's finely tuned mechanics while adding things that only a computer can handle like Fog Of War.

But the 3D adds nothing to the game. Forgive me if I'm wrong because I've been away from computer wargames for awhile but isn't the recent Panzer Corps a success? And doesn't it use a 2D map? I think the focus on 3D was a misguided attempt to appeal to a broader body of gamers. Sure we have the top down view but basically it's just a top down view of the 3D map.

It drives me absolutely crazy that I can't easily see where the hills are. And it also drives me crazy that the odd undulating 3D hills often makes it impossible to look at the map and predict LOS from one hex to another. I really like so much about the game but if it feels like I'm constantly fighting the map I'll probably have to put it on hold until a 2D view is added or at least the top down view is vastly improved.

[Blind Sniper]

It's my hope that for SoS WCS gives us the option to play with the real boards. I bet it would be super popular.

Yes, another one here.
2D map and 2D counters would be my choice.

[Krupinski]

I favour definitely 3d models over counters. It adds so much immersion to the game. BTW, i think the 3d landscape works very well.

[kvob]

ORIGINAL: Binko

It drives me absolutely crazy that I can't easily see where the hills are. And it also drives me crazy that the odd undulating 3D hills often makes it impossible to look at the map and predict LOS from one hex to another. I really like so much about the game but if it feels like I'm constantly fighting the map I'll probably have to put it on hold until a 2D view is added or at least the top down view is vastly improved.

I really like this game but feel exactly the same about the 3D.

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: hafer
I favour definitely 3d models over counters. It adds so much immersion to the game. BTW, i think the 3d landscape works very well.

Thanks. The artists did a great job with the models and the textures. The guy who did the maps for the second version of the board game, Pat Ward, also did our scenery objects, and many of the textures in the computer game come from textures he used to create the flat maps for the board game.

It'd be great for me if every gamer out there felt the same way about flat maps and chits as most of the gentlemen on this thread do, but it does seem that the 3D graphics really do help the war games reach a wider audience.

[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.

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
when we (those that prefer 2D maps) are left without the choice to have it the way we wanted it seems very unfair

I regret I am unequal to the task of acting fairly toward any man if this be the standard of fairness to which I am to be held.

[stormbringer3]

I'm one of the gamers that 3D means absolutely nothing to me. I focus on the game and the AI. I still love playing Steel Panthers and those graphics are definitely dated.

[Binko]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe
It'd be great for me if every gamer out there felt the same way about flat maps and chits as most of the gentlemen on this thread do, but it does seem that the 3D graphics really do help the war games reach a wider audience.

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.

My guess is that the game is built from the ground up with 3D in mind. So it would probably be a big task to add true 2D. But could you at least do what you can to make the top down view more usable especially when it comes to seeing the hills.

Here are two easy ideas:
1) Countour lines showing elevation increases.
2) Instead of just saying "Open Ground" when moused over, how about "Open Ground, Hill Elevation 50" or something like that.

Some easy fixes like this would really help make the top-down 3D view more usable as a pseudo-2D view.

[Bison36]

I do like the idea of an addtional contour overlay. It can be difficult at times to easily determine height differences in the terrain. Also perhaps a toggle to "hide" trees to help read chits in them a little easier too.