Resolutions

[Calvin809]

I'm wondering about resolution and graphics. Will there be higher res./graphical settings for the computer compared to the tablets version?  

[Ned Loe]

look at any current game on pc, this game should have the same settings.

[SirThorne]

look at any current game on pc, this game should have the same settings.

Considering that this is a PC game first and foremost, and since I haven't seen any Xbox banners anywhere around here, I hope its safe to assume you are correct.

Most games that miss these basic features were poorly ported from a game console, lacked a decent dev team, or simply lacked funds.

 

I would expect to see the industry standards.

• Resolution options allowing for play at 640x480 to at least 1920x1080
• High/Med/Low settings for textures
• High/Med/Low settings for shadows
• High/Med/Low settings for shaders
• Options for anti-aliasing
• Options for anisotropic filtering
• Basic key bindings
• Basic volume controls

If any of these things don't make it into the game, I would chock it up to serious budget/time constraints.

 

I wouldn't worry.

 

(P.S., I thought this was a post about Naval Action, but the point remains valid.)

[Myes!]

The game certainly seems to be doing quite a few concessions in favour of the tablet-versions, if some of Darth's posts are to be taken as evidence. So I share your concern.

[admin]

The game certainly seems to be doing quite a few concessions in favour of the tablet-versions, if some of Darth's posts are to be taken as evidence. So I share your concern.

 

I am not sure what concessions are you referring to. 

we will support standard industry resolutions. because it's not a 3D game it becomes even less of a problem

[TheCenturion]

I am not sure what concessions are you referring to. 

we will support standard industry resolutions. because it's not a 3D game it becomes even less of a problem

 

Well, that's good to hear. Though there have been a fair few concessions, mainly when I asked about the particle effects, and what I've seen about controls, troop numbers and AI. I have nothing against that, but I'm pretty sure they're major concessions.

[Myes!]

Well, that's good to hear. Though there have been a fair few concessions, mainly when I asked about the particle effects, and what I've seen about controls, troop numbers and AI. I have nothing against that, but I'm pretty sure they're major concessions.

 

Indeed. From what I understand, it is at present practically an iPad game that just happens to be running on a PC, as well. And that is not a good thing.

I mean - seriously - each faction only has one single model for infantry/cavalry/artillery? No matter what kind of troop it is? That's fucking insane. Has anyone ever heard of any other game that does this, since 1995?

 

(Stop. I take that back. That's not fair to games from 1995. Imagine if Command & Conquer 1 or Close Combat only had one single infantry or tank model, no matter what type of soldier they are?

 

That's right. Even back then, you wouldn't be able to get away with this shit.)

 

This is such a massive, massive "concession", I almost tought it was a joke. I'm still not sure that it isn't.

Hell, If you didn't know better, you'd almost suspect that Darth was only ever really interested in making an iOS-game, but found the Steam Early Access-program to be a convenient source of beta-testing.

 

Hmmm... 

[TheCenturion]

Indeed. From what I understand, it is at present practically an iPad game that just happens to be running on a PC, as well. And that is not a good thing.

I mean - seriously - each faction only has one single model for infantry/cavalry/artillery? No matter what kind of troop it is? That's fucking insane. Has anyone ever heard of any other game that does this, since 1995?

 

(Stop. I take that back. That's not fair to games from 1995. Imagine if Command & Conquer 1 or Close Combat only had one single infantry or tank model, no matter what type of soldier they are?

 

That's right. Even back then, you wouldn't be able to get away with this shit.)

 

This is such a massive, massive "concession", I almost tought it was a joke. I'm still not sure that it isn't.

Hell, If you didn't know better, you'd almost suspect that Darth was only ever really interested in making an iOS-game, but found the Steam Early Access-program to be a convenient source of beta-testing.

 

Hmmm... 

 

You seem to forget that game is in fact, still in Beta. That means not all content is yet in the game, and ultimately it's their choice whether or not they add it in. Also, you say model, but clearly the game uses sprites. Keep in mind that this isn't a massive company with access to millions of dollars worth of resources. 

 

And, again, you seem to forget the game's graphical focus is on large bodies of troops, not individual soldiers. If you zoomed in that much, I'm pretty sure you've completely missed the focus of the game. I wasn't complaining, I was simply pointing out that there have been a few concessions, and there wasn't much point to say there hasn't. That said, we're yet to see if the PC version has extra features / capability. 

[David Fair]

Lusketrollet,

You stated, "I mean - seriously - each faction only has one single model for infantry/cavalry/artillery? No matter what kind of troop it is? That's fucking insane..."

 

Can you help me out here - in your opinion how many "kinds" of infantry troops were there in the American Civil War?

Are you talking about different "uniforms"; or different "kinds of troops" (e.g., regulars, zouaves, light infantry, sharpshooters, etc..)?

 

The scale of the game is mostly at the brigade level so the regimental mix of each brigade could, and often did, include a mix of uniforms and troop quality.  Are you proposing that the brigades include multiple regiments with sprites in different uniforms comprising the brigades?  

 

The question I would have is for a game at this scale how would this mix of uniforms add to strategic value of the game?  

 

If you are talking about the lack of flexibility of the brigades to deploy and operate as they did historically; in more than one role (skirmishing, line, column, etc...) this is a different question.  

 

Are you asking about eye candy?  Or are you asking about historical accuracy of the limitations that can will occur as result of a "single model" for each division?  

 

Is your "insane" comment directed at the relationship of combat between units of different combat arms?  Example - brigades deployed skirmishers to overwhelm unsupported artillery units.  These skirmishers shot down the artillery's horses and men without offering a concentrated target for the artillery to respond (see google images of "bigelow's battery gettysburg" for example).  For this reason artillery seldom functioned as a independent combat arm in the front ranks during the Civil War (guns were supported with infantry).  When artillery operated independently they were either withdrawn, captured, or suffered disproportionate casualties.  

 

Bottom line - are you concerned about the sanity of the look of the game or sanity of the game play?

 

Thanks for your clarification.

[Calvin809]

I think the game looks good so far from what I've seen but it seems like its heading more toward a tablet game that you can play on the computer. I was wondering if the PC version will have a bit more options to tweak than a tablet version.

[Myes!]

You seem to forget that game is in fact, still in Beta.

 

 

Darth himself stated that the full game is not likely to look in any way different from the tablet version. Which, yes, I find to be a problem.

 

 

And, again, you seem to forget the game's graphical focus is on large bodies of troops, not individual soldiers. If you zoomed in that much, I'm pretty sure you've completely missed the focus of the game.

 

 

Everyone with even below-average eyesight would be able to immediately differentiate a Zouave or a Sharpshooter from the rest of the soldiers without zooming in, even remotely. And you know this.

  

 

 

Can you help me out here - in your opinion how many "kinds" of infantry troops were there in the American Civil War?

 

 

Are you talking about different "uniforms"; or different "kinds of troops" (e.g., regulars, zouaves, light infantry, sharpshooters, etc..)?

 

 

Generally, the "kinds of troops". 

 

 

The scale of the game is mostly at the brigade level so the regimental mix of each brigade could, and often did, include a mix of uniforms and troop quality.  Are you proposing that the brigades include multiple regiments with sprites in different uniforms comprising the brigades?

 

 

Yes. A brigade/regiment of Zouaves should look like Zouaves. I do not think this is an unreasonable request.

 

 

 

The question I would have is for a game at this scale how would this mix of uniforms add to strategic value of the game?  

 

[...]

 

Are you asking about eye candy?  Or are you asking about historical accuracy of the limitations that can will occur as result of a "single model" for each division? 

 

[...]

 

Bottom line - are you concerned about the sanity of the look of the game or sanity of the game play?

 

 

 

See, the two aren't mutually exclusive. It is very much in my interest to be able to immediately discern which on-screen soldier is what, at a glance. Also, it just looks better.

 

 

If you are talking about the lack of flexibility of the brigades to deploy and operate as they did historically; in more than one role (skirmishing, line, column, etc...) this is a different question.

 

 

This is another issue I have, but, like you said, that's a topic for another day.

 

Is your "insane" comment directed at the relationship of combat between units of different combat arms?

 

 

Related to what I said, above. It looks better, and is more informative.

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

I think the game looks good so far from what I've seen but it seems like its heading more toward a tablet game that you can play on the computer. I was wondering if the PC version will have a bit more options to tweak than a tablet version.

 

 

Exactly. A tablet game. That just happens to be playable on a computer. If this is Darth's true agenda, then it is disappointing. Deeply so.

[David Fair]

Lusketrollet,

 

Thanks for the clarifications.  Sorry to hear you are deeply disappointed with the tablet agenda; but, I understand why.

 

I've never heard of a "division of zouaves" during the American Civil War.  Regiments, yes.  Division and above, no.

Can you send me a reference pointer?

 

I'm sympathetic that you want things, "to look better".  

The unit icons floating around in Darth's Video really detract from the game IMO.  The game would look much better with realistic looking flags.

 

It is not clear to me how a uniform would help you, "immediately discern which on-screen soldier is what, at a glance".  During the Napoleonic Wars uniforms were identifiable and aligned with troop quality.  But during the American Civil War there was less correlation between uniforms and troop quality.  Especially at the brigade-level and above.  The Iron Brigade wore distinctive "black hats" and many units carried distinctive battle flags.  By 1863 the South was in rough shape logistically.  At Gettysburg I'm aware of only 1 CSA battery that had gray uniforms issued for the entire unit before the campaign.  Other than this single battery the ANV was dressed predominantly in earth tones that varied from home spun to butternut and very dark brown (captured Union uniforms dyed dark brown with acorn shells to avoid confusion).  While there were still a handful of non-conformist Union regiments at Gettysburg they were integrated into divisions predominantly dressed in blue.  Other than 350 Union sharpshooters that wore green, which are militarily irrelevant in a game at this scale, there just wasn't much uniform variation at Gettysburg.

 

The progression of units from militia to veterans or elite was more a function of battle experience than dress.  Zouaves were mixed into divisions with more conformist uniforms.  From a performance perspective these Zouaves were not particularly distinctive as a class.  Some zouaves earned an excellent reputation; others did not.  Additionally, despite popular art, many of these gaudy zouave uniforms were not worn in combat - they were only worn on dress parade.  

 

It seems our priorities and perspectives are different.  The most important thing to get right from my perspective is having a "realistic enough" battlefield simulation.  Personally it doesn't bother me if the sprites are more uniform than they should be as long as the combat arms function within "reasonable historically accurate parameters" relative to each other (e.g., Civil War Artillery inflicted 8% of battlefield casualties therefore artillery effectiveness should be adjusted it is inflicting 25% of the game casualties because this will impact the game balance).  

 

But, since this is a, "topic for another day" I'll wait a bit.

[Calvin809]

I don't think that different unit looks are that important for the strategy element but it would add to the immersion a bit more. Maybe higher res. sprites/larger amounts of sprites or more effects on screen at the same time would be nice for the PC version to allow us to use the power of our PCs a bit more (if we have a powerful PC. ) This is not a game breaker for me though since the strategy aspect is the most important part to develop well.