GShock
-
Posts
352 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by GShock
-
-
Thanks for the answer Husserl.
It would be a good idea if this was specified in the scenario so that at the beginning of the battle, players know why it happened.
I know there was a logic, I've always known, but I think the players would like the game to tell them why it their army withdrew from the hardly conquered objectives. You said "may" it means it's possible that it doesn't happen but when it does happen, the player should be told why it happened.
In other words, the variable used, at the end of the previous battle should be declared before the following battle begins in the scenario introduction.
-
Oh yes, 1.0 is out and we expect a new patch anytime today.
-
Wait,
one thing is to give information (data) and another thing is giving cues and tooltips (aids).
Under some aspects I think the game needs to give some data it doesn't give (I want to know whether that enemy Bde is in cover or not, for example), under some aspects it does give too much data (I don't want to know the exact number of enemy troops in a Bde) and under the aids aspect, there's a definite need to improve the UI.
The battle is as confusing as it should be but without the visual cues it only becomes less manageable. Now managing the battle better doesn't make any difference in regards with confusion but it gives you a tool to do exactly what you want to do.
-
1
-
-
I'm sure we'll see a lot of these things come true in the near future.
Hey... it's Monday!
-
The conditions under which this may happen should be made public and explained in and out of the game.
"This may happen" is not an explanation "this happens when X and Y conditions are met" is an explanation. The logical process behind the way next scenario begins should be thoroughlly explained because it may imply choices on behalf of the players. With multiple objectives, the choice would be to relinquish one and save the troops if that obj. was lost at the beginning of the next day.
Not questioning the logic (whichever it is, since we don't know it atm), it just should be explained in the utmost detail.
-
Oh yes I like the sound of that!
-
I know, I've met some myself and already posted in pvt about some critical features I think the DEVs should be looking at.
-
It is at all possible, David.
I just said lacking explanations on how this "arbitrariety" works there could also be a logical reason that is not flawed.
I made an example on how a GOOD logic might work behind such decision but you may very well be right, I have no idea at this time. I am still at Day 1.
-
Only the explanation is flawed, not the logic. If you take a hill but your division takes 60% losses, or your arty has no ammo, you're better off go back to the main body of the army or you'll be overrun the next day.
I'm just making an example but I agree this logic must be better explained. Since there are variables involved with the VP, it's better that the game explains what happens at the end of a scenario.
In view of possible adjustments, in the future, we must assume the only FIXED situation is day 1.
From day 2 everything may change and not necessarily the way it went in the real history. Albeit, even at the first day things may run different if Doubleday arrives later or arrives a bit more on the West. All these things would work but that logic must be explained. If you lose a VP on a scenario's decision this must be explained. It's not necessarily wrong but it has to be explained thoroughlly. Since you got multiple VPs, you might want to decide to go for just the easy one and take less losses and in this case you must hold it. Again, explanation before and after scenario load solves it all.
-
1
-
-
The list of mentioned fixes is inlcluding all major glitches spotted so far but the Revamp of gameplay for more challenge puts many possible things into the cauldron.
No linux here, unfortunately...
-
1
-
-
Having ascertained you know what you're saying because you've studied it, I think you're right in reporting this and advocating a change.
I'm sure with more players coming we'll see lots of these incoherent behaviors of the mini-campaign and the more we spot, the more can be fixed.
Today is Friday and it's a possible patch day.
-
Also, the LOS shading needs to be way more precise to be useful, My sense is that right now you're modeling this as a dimming in the ambient light in the area. This is wrong, the shading effect is not sufficiently precise, and it gets mixed up with the shading of the hills. You should stick an actual light source where the unit is, and project actual shadows around the battlefield.
It is my understanding that LOS has glitches and bugs that are being corrected in the near future.
Retouching is premature before the final result is achieved.
New features are always good. Buttons, different methods of selection/formation/rally point/arrival point/waypoint, etc. etc. fall into this category but before going forward it's more important to build a solid, unglitched version of what we have. That diminishes the chances to build an alternative with good intentions and propositions (such as this one)... but that ends up creating a world of bugs.
ahahahah he said PERHAPS Friday... and today is THURSDAY!
-
Perhaps this is supposed to be tied to the strategic situation at the end of the battle.
If you take huge losses, even if you hold, the next morning you're overrun by superior forces and so you switch to better position in next battle but that ought to be clarified.
I am actually excited to see the game in the making being molded into something as it dynamically evolves around the players' reports and requests (poll in other thread).
Very excited.
-
1
-
-
Unsurprisingly, this poll has touched many many things I suggested on the TWC forums.
We need to build numbers, revenue, solid user base and then... anything is possible.
-
It's a 1.0, be patient. Many many things will improve.
Actually this is one of the most polished 1.0 I ever saw.
... and I saw hundreds.
-
You can rotate 2d maps anywhere that's not the point.
i think rotation would help a lot with planning arty attacks (LOS).
Considering the game has a strong solid base, I would highly recommend an altitude variability algorithm (with specific limitations).
One thing is if you can fire from Mc Pherson's ridge to Oak ridge and a totally different strategy has to be applied if this can't be done because of intervening higher terrain or opposite height of the hills.
This feature would make the same scenario have a virtually unlimited longevity.
-
Make sure to use/explain the great suggestions posted by REB Blunt here: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/1750-morale-doesnt-make-sense-to-me/?p=36996
-
A guy who drops is admitting the defeat. Anytime he drops he should take the loss and his opponent be credited for the win.
I'd just fix it so that a player can be given a reputation by his opponent, so players can actually avoid players who play tricks. Also, a boost in points for players who complete the whole battle (regardless of the defeat) seems a good incentive.
-
1
-
-
7
10
14
15
17
21
Well that's 2 weeks since last update while previous entries were pretty close to one another. What are you guys working on?
What can we expect for the next patch?
Just a tad, not the whole list... but give us some news, I am curious.
-
I've proposed something similar in the feedback 1.0 thread but let's not forget there's a known bug in the arty LOS and that things right now seem a lot more complicated than they actually will be when this bug is solved.
-
Watching a friend play UGG, two things stood out to me:
- They had no idea about morale + condition and were constantly frustrated when low morale/condition units refused to engage in any serious way.
- Managing artillery was really difficult for them.
The other piece of this that can be frustrating is not knowing whether LOS will be favorable from some other point on the map. I've had a few situations where I move a bunch of batteries into a position that looks like it would provide favorable sight lines into enemy formations only to discover that for some quirk of the map they can't shoot anything. I think sometimes this has to do with not judging trees correctly, sometimes it's buildings (which totally confound my reasoning; since they don't show up on the topo map and look flat) but it would be really great to have some sort of arbitrary LOS checker. I've seen games do this with a special tool where you click and hold on the starting point and drag around and it turns green or red if the target point is visible from that point. Alternatively, you could just shade the whole map according to an LOS calculation from that point. This is perhaps a little ahistorical, but I also think if you're in the actual place you can much more accurately judge visibility from one point to another by inspection, where in the game it can be more surprising than I think is strictly fair. Perhaps for balance reasons it could be limited in range from your units?I also think you need to engage in a bigger marketing push! Was talking to some coworkers at lunch who were big TW fans (I said "I've been playing this game by the guy who did those TW mods" and he said "Wait, Darth made a game?!") who aren't aware of UGG. There's a big market out there beyond the super hardcore EA folks and I think this game could be a big hit with them if you can work out how to reach them.
This is really one of those spots where we could use the courier sprite.
A single cav man that moves from the "parent" commander to the spot you want to check for LOS and when he arrives, provide the LOS exactly as if the Arty unit was there.
Then you can recall the scout to that commander when you're done and, next, send him to the Arty unit you want to move to that spot. When it gets to the Arty, the Arty should perform the move order automatically. Scout could also be used to check for LOS with other unit types not just for Arty.
Totally agree with the market push and I only happened to know of this game from TWC when I read a small post highlighted on the right hand side of the forum. However, I think it's only a matter of time. TWC is a huge community and I'd rather start there than anywhere else because of its visibility profit/cost ratio.
Victory matters(?)
in General Discussions
Posted
I think I am finally understanding what you mean, David.
There's probably a set of variables in-built that try to force the player onto a specific path for the evolution of the scenario that probably don't take fully into account the what-if philosophy the game has been built upon.
History and "what if" can't coexist: Day 2 can be historical only if day 1 was.
I guess this will be straightened out in the near future.