Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

*Share your opinions* Unit Card Concept Art


Nick Thomadis

Recommended Posts

Two of the primary leaders had the same facts, on the same day, at the same time and came to very different conclusions on the state of the army.

 

That very fine paradigm gave me the perception that these two leaders had exactly the same knowledge of the army but very different expectations and faith for it. So Grant's determination won in the end. What is needed as aftermath is strong, concrete winning tactics about all things in life. Narrowed down to UI space, we should be determined that this game needs a larger audience than a small percentage of very demanding players in a way that it does not break the essence of tactics, realism and strategy. We should and we will find the correct recipe.

 

PS - Just letting you know I emphatically and respectfully disagree with your statement, "And in realistic situation you can more easily understand what is happening (as you use all your sensors) than in game where you have limited data based on graphics and sounds that replicate realism."  I'm from a military family.

 

Yes I get your point but I was misunderstood. Because what I wanted to emphasize is that no game, yet, can fully simulate the real terror and sense of danger that a real battle has. For example if you are part of a unit that is about to retreat you do not need to see its flag if it becomes white as in a game. You see the men terrified, been killed, you see enemy troops aiming at your direction and hear bullets to pass through you. In the game you sense all these with as good graphics & sounds as possible + some statistic data but cannot be the same. Even if in the end you have wrong perception of the battlefield because you cannot see the map as in a game for example, you have accurate perception of hills, of enemy troops and dangers near you, that can be very difficult to simulate in a game unless you make complete chaos a feature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick,

I'm a business dev guy not a hard core gamer.  If I was investing in your game company here's what I'd suggest:

 

My hypothesis is that the statistics in historical games have made the learning curve (real and perceived) too steep for strategy games and too complex/confusing to attract new players.  The sales data on the player community is that the numbers of folks playing strategy games is decreasing; so you have a big challenge with this game.  I believe unit statistics lack mass market appeal and get in the way of the fun (tactics, realism, and strategy).  I'm convinced that unit statistics are for hard core games and don't give mass market volume players a deeper understanding of tactics or strategy or make a game more "fun".  Unit statistics narrow the user base.

 

I'd suggest reducing the number and complexity of UI statistics, simplify the format of the statistics, and reduce complexity of information on the screen (If I can't command a unit it is not flashing white on the screen.  The computer takes over this unit until it reforms and I can take command again).  

 

I'm a fan of history but I'm not a demanding player.  I don't have time for demanding games.  I'm looking for mentally challenging entertainment in a fast paced game that I can enjoy in a couple of hours in a hotel room.  My play metric is that I want to finish all four days of Gettysburg in about 4 hours of play.

 

Philosophically we have two different perspectives on how to accelerate TTM and broaden the user base.  

 

As you've stated, game testing is always the litmus test for game balance.

 

I'm just trying to assist with your Time to Money (TTM).  My suspicion is that if you test with the Game Grognards in this forum they have one set of expectations (e.g., I want the stats in an icon with the percentages and a graphic bar).  If you can test with history fan newbies you may get feedback that may help broaden the appeal of the game.

 

 I'm trying to reduce and hide complexity and make suggestions that attract more customers to your game.

 

Email may not be the best communication method for biz strategy or to discuss implementing creativity.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really dislike the tiles. I prefer bars and numbers, so 18 and 19 are my favourites. But I'm also fine with 21-23.

For me, the tiles really take away a lot of precise information because there are only 5 states that can be represented and in my opinion that's way too inaccurate and makes me unable to see small changes and therefore trends which I really need to see how the unit is performing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

===Opinions===

- personally I perfer #26 out of all the choices.

Since I find it appealing to look at the those two gentleman who are about to fight, ratings of my men and clear terain of the map behind them (Even though it's only a unit card). And also to clearly see measurement of how many of your troops, morale, etc. (I think, the picture you showed.. Well kinda isn't that clear..)

- But when you look at that way, #18 has the more information of the picture on this battle.. Which information of your men is very important to be seen clearly.

===Suggestions===

- Might I suggest try mixing some of the unit cards there? Like a unit card mixture number #26 with the number #18 and number #21 is helpful. Like a 2 types of unit card. 1 is for the strengths and weakness its men, and the other is the current battle stats.

 

From:

Send-1.jpg

 

To:

SampleUnitCardByKenichinsfs.jpg

 

- This is something what I've thought that can help. Of course, I didn't placed everything important there since I barely know little of this game for now. But a sample like this that shows a more detailed information in a current war. Show the number of units, it's percentage, and a moral at the bottom.

- I might not get the general idea or wrong idea of the kind of game this is, due to the lack of info, yet I'm sure this is somehow helpful to at least add up or make an idea out of it.

 

P.S. I made this by my own actually. Edited some pics you showed us with photoshop. This is of course, only a way to help the developers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Strategy games were displaced by first person shooters; with good reason. Too many geeky details,statistics, and graphics that detract from a great gaming experience. The unpredictability of first person shooters is a large part what brings people back to a game"

 

David Fair’s insights are Spot On.

 

I’m not sure what I’m advocating here. There are several separate genres of games; with widely different aesthesis, but most gamers chris-cross genres, A Lot.

 

Is it all about The Hunt and Not the Kill?

 

“It is well that war is so terrible; lest we should grow too fond of it.” (Gen. Robert E. Lee)

 

Battles should be risky and exhilarating. Even when heavily favored to win; the Player must be drawn in, amused, pleased, entertained and at risk to get Mauled or Lose. All at the same time. Humor and innocent surprises should be part of the conflict. Battle is a Peak Experience.

 

Yes, there should be a lot of logistical and tactical unit-card type battle preparation. But the battle should have its own “life”. Gettysburg started in the wrong place and at the wrong time for everybody.

 

I advocate additional “Battle Stimuli” to engage and create immediacy for the Player.

 

Nick,

Hopefully your statement that, "Much information will be given from the flag itself in a very subtle way" is not a euphemism for we are copying the Sid Meyer "crumpled flag" implementation.  In Sid Meyer as unit moral sagged their flag drooped and eventually the troops routed.  The Sid Meyer series was all about micromanaging which units to take off the line.  Battleground was fun to play a couple of times; but way too much micromanagement.  Strategy game micromanagement has driven scores of people away from this genre of game.  Battleground's implementation detracted from the tactics of maneuver to pin enemy units in place, then flank, and shatter the enemy.  

 

I'm hoping to see an implementation that breaks new new ground with strategy games; a game where you actually need to devise a plan and follow that strategy to win the battle.  

 

Fog of war is a key component on the battlefield.  If commanders always know which units are going to run then you artificially level all commanders.  Great commanders know where to have reserves and when to use them.  What set Napoleon and Lee apart from other commanders was their ability to understand the pulse of a battle.  Both of these commanders knew how to find an open flank and smash it.  They managed their battles with a gut sense of timing; not by micromanaging the statistics floating around their commands.  

 

Droopy flag games; been there done that.  

 

Fog of war - I've been playing strategy games for years and never seen a satisfying strategy game implementation.  Once the innovation of moral was introduced into strategy games then game developers wanted to quantify and track "the level" of statistics.  Devising new statistics to display that players were to monitor was mistaken for innovation.  Strategy games were displaced by first person shooters; with good reason.  Too many geeky details,statistics, and graphics that detract from a great gaming experience.  The unpredictability of first person shooters is a large part what brings people back to a game (along with flashing lights and sounds - a bit too Las Vegas for my taste; but you get the point).

 

You have the ability to implement a strategy game that breaks new ground with a new concept.  Moral is critical to how units behave; but it is intangible.  I'd urge you to ditch the legacy "quantify and expose every statistic" mentality. Attract new blood to the strategy game genre.   Reduce the statistics, increase the pace of play.  Embrace the chaos of the battlefield.  I'm not looking to play a deterministic game of chess when I play a strategy game.  I'm looking for the thrill of not knowing precisely how my units will react to the decisions I've made.  The right level of battlefield chaos/excitement is what will return players to a strategy game genre.

 

One of the problems with the old board games was they were completely deterministic and the odds were well known (roll of a dice).  Most miniatures rules were quantified to the point that it took 10 hours to simulate 2 hours of combat.  Computers offered the potential for great strategy games; but game designers got so caught up in the UI statistic tracking that they've destroyed the strategy game experience and alienated the customer base to the die hard. 

 

My suggestions/observations:

Hide the complexity and statistics that makes your game great and unique.

Don't do a hybrid tw - dump the white flashing flags; broken units are the least important to a commander's options

Just because you don't display a bunch of statistics doesn't mean your users will think the game is simple 

We will learn to trust the game engine as we play.

Give players a fast to learn; easy to play game without a bunch of fantasy statistics (moral, firepower, melee...)

Focus on the important (number and quality of men and current state of fatigue)

Make a game that is brutally challenging to master (not micromanage)  

Give the player the same qualify of information that leaders had historically (simplify)

Focus on the tempo of the game to make it fast paced (I don't want to study a unit's statistics to decide if I should attack an enemy's position.  Leaders I trust are in positions of responsibility; I know my troops are veterans, and they are fresh - Charge!)

Statistics (especially the illusion of precision for intangibles like moral) drive people away from strategy games; keep the statistics you expose to the game player to an absolutely critical minimum

Focus on the quality of the battle experience; not the number of statistics.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admin’s desire to keep the cards clean is on point.

 

Clicking on an icon or information window should allow the Player to dig into the source or metric of that information. The depth of these layers of information is very Enriching to the game Player.

 

I have some additional thoughts for the 4 points at the end of his comments regarding: Cover, Morale, Fatigue and other things one cannot judge from the texts of cards and visual representations that should be on the UI.

 

What if a lot of Players are dyslectic?

 

Audio: Many dyslectics compensate for their challenges with text by being very keen listeners.

 

1) Cover: 12 guys walking down a dirt road at night are almost invisible and inaudible. 1500 guys walking stealthily down a dirt road at night sounds like a thousand guys walking.

 

A thousand small Noises can travel a surprising distance.

 

2) Moral and Fatigue: Think of “Henry V” visiting his troops the Night Before the Battle of Agincourt. Henry, in disguise, found his troops; sick, cold, wet and road-weary. But, they believed their King righteous and were willing to wade through thousands of royal knights, just to Get Home!

 

Henry listened to the mumblings and grumblings of his troops.

 

3) The UI should be “over rich”; offering or bombarding the Player with a variety of “informations”.

 

 

Wanted to shed a little bit more light on the UI concept and hear your feedback.. 

 

Foundation principles

  • UI is minimalistic - no clutter, no noise. 
  • Detailed information is 1 click away
  • Even more detailed information is 2 clicks away
  • Most information is already on the map and redundant information is dropped from the UI

How it might work

For example Action (Swords) button.. 

You already see who you are fighting against on the game screen. And in most cases it is enough. So you only see this on the top of the screen

ijjKw0V.jpg

 

Now if you want more information you click on the block of information in the left top corner and you will then see this

AKSSFgo.jpg

 

And further if you click on swords you will see more info on the enemy unit

d5R2six.jpg

 

 

This concept covers most elements on the UI.. minimal in the beginning, detailed after a click or two

Clicking on timer opens controls of speed

Clicking on options opens up more options

Clicking on the battle flow opens up more info 

 

Rl7aSwol.jpg

 

Where we have differences in opinions inside the team is what information is important and which should be guessed from the visuals

 

  • For example cover.. Cover is definitely visible on the screen. you see if your unit on the hill or in the forest. If this is true then it could be possible to drop cover from the UI because players sees them, And we have more space as a result. 
  • Morale is similar. You see blinking flag on the map, or fully white flag when unit is running, If it is enough to understand, then we can free space on the UI for more important things. 
  • Things you cannot judge from the visuals of course should be on the UI - for example Fatigue. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...