Demo Comments

[MadScot]

OK, having finally found it, a couple of comments:

1. The tutorial would be MUCH better if you could get to/from the Tutorial manual from within the game - trying to Alt-Tab back and forth is a real pain, especially as the game and acrobat seem to conflict over resolution. I don't like the idea of printing out a 60 page colour manual to try to learn a game, especially when there';s another 60 page game manual too...

Perhaps if there was some way to have the text pop-up from the manual - the diagrams aren't needed, since the game interface is right there, but it's certainly not an easy learning experience.

2. The game graphics are, I'm afraid, and of course IMHO, ugly as hell. The colours all seem very 'bright' and exaggerated. It's very offputting; doesn't look at all like a map, for one thing. It's as if a decision were taken to make the game look 'computery'. The more muted toned of e.g. HTTR are, again IMHO, several orders of magnitude better; it looks more like a 'map'. Look at a current (or old) paper and card board wargame to see what I mean - the best maps have very muted tones, so that the counters - which are the important thing - stand out better. On the BiN interface the units almost get lost in the map clutter.

Both of these are disappointing because the game has got such good reviews and I want to like it; but as things stand I can hardly bring myself to try to learn the game.

[JSS]

Reference the map colors, I think this is a matter of perspective and what you're acustomed to seeing... To my military eye the KP and BIN maps look very much like real operational maps. The very distinct terrain differences make planning operations easier IMHO. I highly recommend giving BIN a chance; the game play is very well worth it.

[AlvinS]

I highly recommend giving BIN a chance; the game play is very well worth it.

I agree. This system is well worth the effort. When I first started playing the map seemed too busy for me. After playing a few times everything seems so natural now. IMHO the AI is very good and makes for a great solitare game. I will give PBEM a try soon.

I did have to print the tutorial for this one, as I agree that it is a pain to alt-tab between the 2. If you stick with this one, I feel your efforts will be rewarded.[;)]

[MadScot]

Yikes - no unit IDs displayed on the map. Yeouch. This right-clicking constantly is annoying. And I still hate the colours. (It looks like no military map I've ever seen - UK OS maps are, again, muted colours, generally.

[Fred98]

What is a unit "ID"?

I can tell what most units are by the unit counters.

[MadScot]

Formation Identity.

Such as "CCA/1st Armd", for example. As things stand the Division identity seems to be some king of cryptic symbol - maybe it's the Divisional shoulder patch? And the actual unit identity is in the info section that shows up when you select a unit.

I find it much, much simpler to think of the units by their historical identities; it also engenders more "suspension of disbelief" - I'd rather think "I'm going to order the Royal Scots and the Coldstream Guards to attack" than "I'll send the guys with the yellow blob and the guys with the red triangle" or whatever symbols might be on the counter. I'm also more likely to remember that the 2nd PWO got cut up attacking last turn than I am a generic unit.

I'd have preferred a centred NATO symbol, the unit size above that, the formation ID to the leftt of the NATO symbol, the superior formation ID on the right side. [NATO STANAG 2019, in fact ] All 4 corners would still be free for the "action" indicators or whatever, plus the bottom of the counter.

I know it's a style thing, but it's how (more or less) the vast majority of board game counters have been arranged for decades now; it does seem to be functional.

[ravinhood]

Ahhhh tis nice to see someone else "whine" besides me for a change about a game. hehe

What was it "Joshua" said in that movie "War Games" at the end?

"The best move in this game is just not to play it at all". lol

[MadScot]

The way I see it, if I don't whine to the developers, I've no reason to expect anyone to design the game the way I like them. I'm assuming that saying what I'd like, rather than just what I don't like, might be useful to someone, somewhere, somehow....

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: MadScot

Formation Identity.

Such as "CCA/1st Armd", for example. As things stand the Division identity seems to be some king of cryptic symbol - maybe it's the Divisional shoulder patch? And the actual unit identity is in the info section that shows up when you select a unit.

I find it much, much simpler to think of the units by their historical identities; it also engenders more "suspension of disbelief" - I'd rather think "I'm going to order the Royal Scots and the Coldstream Guards to attack" than "I'll send the guys with the yellow blob and the guys with the red triangle" or whatever symbols might be on the counter. I'm also more likely to remember that the 2nd PWO got cut up attacking last turn than I am a generic unit.

I'd have preferred a centred NATO symbol, the unit size above that, the formation ID to the leftt of the NATO symbol, the superior formation ID on the right side. [NATO STANAG 2019, in fact ] All 4 corners would still be free for the "action" indicators or whatever, plus the bottom of the counter.

I know it's a style thing, but it's how (more or less) the vast majority of board game counters have been arranged for decades now; it does seem to be functional.

The developers have played boardgames for more years than they care to remember, so these ideas are not new to us. However, we made the design decision, based on the unit scale of the game, that the most important aspect of a unit is what division it belongs to, rather than its regimental identity. This might seem somewhat paradoxical, given that the units are mostly regiments. However, given the divisional integrity rules, which are so important to combat efficiency, it's vital to be able to see at glance where the constituent units of a division are.

The problem with making the primary designation "CCA/1st Armd" is that, when printed on a unit, it's hard to distinguish from "CCB/1st Armd" or "CCA/2nd Armd". I don't want to have to look closely at every unit just to determine who it belongs to. Giving primacy to the divisional insignia also really helps when looking at the enemy. In Overlord, if playing the Allies, I'm vitally interested in where Panzer Lehr goes, and I can see it instantly on replay. Similarly, playing the Operation Husky scenario from our next game, I have to know what the HG division is up to.

As fot the map graphics, I know from long experience that we can't please everyone. However, I can say that they have proved wildly popular with large numbers of gamers, and have attracted very favourable comment from players and reviewers. There is some consolation here, in that if you do decide to play the game, you will find a large and enthusiastic pool of PBEM players. If you check out the SSG website, www.ssg.com.au you'll see screenshots from Battles in Normandy and you can check out the forums there for tournaments and user created scenarios which indicate a thriving and happy player community.

Gregor

[MadScot]

Well, obviously you've made your design choices now.

But on the actual map display I can't see either the division name or the unit identity; just a symbol. Given that one can always toggle the division integrity option on and off, I'd have much preferred text than a graphic. Even if it was the division rather than the unit itself. I'm certainly not enough of a WW2 enthusiast to have memorised shoulder flashes or unit badges.....

To take your example : I can't tell you what the Panzer Lehr symbol might be, but if the unit name were there I'd be aware it was a significant unit.

To take boardgame examples - I've seen some where division integrity or corps integrity was so prime that the units were different colours on the same side to indicate this; but I've never seen an operational scale game where the individual units weren't identified if at all possible.

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: MadScot
To take your example : I can't tell you what the Panzer Lehr symbol might be, but if the unit name were there I'd be aware it was a significant unit.

And to other players its exactly the opposite.

I saw Kelley's Heroes the other night and their shoulder patch is the same as one used in the Normandy scenarios. Fascinating!

[MadScot]

Now, if we could choose whether to show badges or IDs........

[merrillh]

Just "tried" the demo, and the lack of cursor pass over tool tips made me want to pass over the game.

Some hint as to what the buttons did by passing your cursor over them is a standard. Not sure why this very helpful function was omitted.

Hunter

[ravinhood]

LOL Merrillh you are spoilt. Back in my day, you didn't have no pass over the mouse features, and you had to map all things and keep logs and journals. Man you kids today are spoilt. lol

[wodin]

I love the badges and it doesn't take long to recognise which badge is which.

Well done to SSG for the counter graphics.

The counters aren't big enough to state the name of the unit. Just click on it and it will say in the unit box. You would have to abbrieviate so much that you would need to be a code cracker to decipher it.

[merrillh]

merrillh = 40 year old that was gaming before pong... [:)]

merrilh <> kid <> spoilt

merrillh = window designer

I just know good design.... *shrugs*

[Rainbow7]

Hey merrilh,
You can right click on any button and a pop-up will give you its function. Slightly more labour-intensive than a passover pop-up, but I'm sure these things usually get turned off with a bit of play experience anyway.

[gsxr1000]

To all the nitpickers
if you get past all your nitpicking and just play the game for what it is you will realize its
a great game, a fun game, interesting, challenging game.

[JeF]

ORIGINAL: merrillh
Just "tried" the demo, and the lack of cursor pass over tool tips made me want to pass over the game.
Some hint as to what the buttons did by passing your cursor over them is a standard. Not sure why this very helpful function was omitted.

I cannot speak for the demo. But on the version of the game I have, you can activate Rollover Help Text in the map option menu (shortcut 'q'). This defines what type of info is displayed on the bottom of the screen. Very helpful, indeed.

To get back to the look of the game, I think that the comparison with HTTR is not quite fair. First, as being said, counters represent regiments and the division symbol is a very important factor in game, as you can quickly check for divisional integrity. I'd like to have pictures instead of NATO symbols but I got used to it. It's not so heavy stuff and most decisions rely on : "armor or not armor".
The map is done differently.
I'm impressed by the graphic quality of BiN maps. Pure beauty. But at the expense of readability i'm afraid. HTTR maps are very nice, but mostly functional. They look like topo maps (which I like). I'd drop a bit of beauty for a bit of readability in BiN, but that's it.

All in all, well done SSG !

JeF.

[ravinhood]

merrillh = window designer

A window designer eh? Do you do Gothic? hehe I want some Gothic windows for my house.