Concept of New Features

General Question/Answer/Announcement about NSD. We are a small independent game development team and we value our community. If you ask, we'll answer.
User avatar
norb
Reactions:
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:59 am
Location: Central Florida
Contact:

Re: Concept of New Features

Post by norb »

I haven't given this much thought but I'll take a stab at something I personally would like to see.

First, have a way to broadcast the game like something along the lines for Halflife for spectators only without the graphics so to speak.

Instead of showing the actual battle taking place, each spectator would see via the built in player something along the lines of a replay instead so minimal bandwidth is being used, and it gets updated every few seconds, or is updated immediately.

Change the replay graphics to painted table top figurines instead of the blocks we already have. PLEASE do something with the replay graphics...

Cheers.
I bet these can be modded, they are in their own package file.
User avatar
norb
Reactions:
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:59 am
Location: Central Florida
Contact:

Re: Concept of New Features

Post by norb »

One aspect I always thought missing in the game series since the beginning, was the ability for troops to entrench when they were holding a position. After 1863 (when spade shovels were able to be massed produced, instead of each being made by a smith by hand), it was pretty much standard for troops to begin entrenching their positions immediately upon stopping/holding.

I have some more thoughts to add, but i need to collect them when I have more time. I wanted to throw that out there though, and also so Norb would know I finally got access to the forum. Thanks Norb ! :)
You're welcome. A lot of the team would agree with you about entrenchments.
NY Cavalry
Reactions:
Posts: 530
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:49 am

Re: Concept of New Features

Post by NY Cavalry »

A note about entrenchments:

There are multiple of multiple of stories of units in the civil war after about 1862 digging entrenchments. As an example, at Chickamuanga the rebels heard throughout the night the union entrenching. The problem with this game would be that the games are one to two hours. You cannot build an entrenchment in two hours. Do you want to maneuver and fight or start chopping down trees and digging? The game already has fortifications like as is the case on Culps Hill. Any time in programing entrenchments would be a unhistorical waste. An initial volley fire button might be what people are looking for.

About the AI:

No Ai is perfect. I recently played a sandbox game where I moved a brigade to flank a Ai position. The Ai didn't attack me, but countered by extending his line. He ended up flanking my flank until I brought more troops over. I have never seen such behavior from any other Ai. Very impressive.
Michael Slaunwhite
Reactions:
Posts: 4358
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:15 am

Re: Concept of New Features

Post by Michael Slaunwhite »

I haven't given this much thought but I'll take a stab at something I personally would like to see.

First, have a way to broadcast the game like something along the lines for Halflife for spectators only without the graphics so to speak.

Instead of showing the actual battle taking place, each spectator would see via the built in player something along the lines of a replay instead so minimal bandwidth is being used, and it gets updated every few seconds, or is updated immediately.

Change the replay graphics to painted table top figurines instead of the blocks we already have. PLEASE do something with the replay graphics...

Cheers.
I bet these can be modded, they are in their own package file.
Thanks Norb!
Scott
Reactions:
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 2:12 am

Re: Concept of New Features

Post by Scott »

If the game is to stay strictly a meeting engagement, without a larger tactical element of troop movment and planning, then I would have to say I agree with you Mr. NY Cavalry. In scenarios, the fortifcations and entrenchements can already be accounted for within the map and scenario design process.(as you pointed out with Culp's Hill) If however the game ever expands beyond a "two armies meeting" situation/egagement, then most assuredly the ability to dig entrencments and build even more significant fortifications would be very desirable. Personally, I would like to see the game account for the more tactical and grander elements of campaign gameplay in future, but others may not agree.
Certainly I would not want to see that aspect of the game added at the expense of the way it plays currently. The battle immmersion is sginficant and desirable as it is, but I would indeed like to see additional grand campaign aspects added to the game to allow for consideration of things such as supply lines, division and dispersion of armies, appointment/assignment and relocation of commnders, and choosing when and where to fight the battles. Strategic choices such as; "should I send portions of my army of northern virginia to assist with fighting Grant in the west", etc. Of course none of these grander campaign elemments should really be considered until the battle aspect of the game is to the satisfaction of the team, and of course, the customer base. One thing is for sure, you can't please all of the people all of the time, but I am certain it is Norbs desire to provide a game platform that will please as many as possible while achieving the goals he has set in his mind for the direction he wants to take it.

Personally I would love to see the entire civil war laid out before us historically, ALL of the battles. A tall order indeed, not likely to happen. But even more...I would love to see the ability to fight the civil war as WE want to fight it in addition, as a grand campaign that would allow us to consider when, where, and how we divide and move our armies, that perhaps takes into consideration things like supply lines, populations, and production, wealth, which would then affect the ability to produce weapons of war, conscript new troops etc. Thus adding a whole new layer/element to the game. Surely this would appeal to some, and not appeal at all to others. There is really a whole vast amount of directions and choices that Norb can choose to go with the game. Ultimately he will have to choose what direction to go, and who he wants to target as a customer base. Perhaps the best route is to simply continue to expand upon what has proven to be successful, by improving upon it both visually, and in its depth of gameplay. It will be for Norb to answer those questions in the end.
NY Cavalry
Reactions:
Posts: 530
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:49 am

Re: Concept of New Features

Post by NY Cavalry »

In the evolution of SOW, I think the MP community (as a whole and not just GCM) and the couriers group has greatly improved the game with our inputs. This is a first version mp game for the team. I'm sure it has been very frustrating and challenging and hopefully very rewarding. The next version should really be good from the lessons learned and the players expectations taken from this game.

What you are wanting Scott is what we all want. What we want is not possible with SOW. For the strategic element of movement and supply we need a second engine. A whole entire game really where the battles could be fought within SOW and the results uploaded into the strategic engine. This is completely doable, but look at the scale of what we are asking for. I hope one day to see this, but I am sure it will become a reality with two games working together. Actually there are strategic Civil War games on the market today and they could be used to do what we want if those games would allow uploading battle results. Then a program would have to be written to more easily upload results and keep oobs. This is doable as SOW is very moddable. A strategic game would not need a combat engine, but would only need to handle movement and supply and a way to set up the battle to be played in SOW. A separate application, strategic in nature, could be more easily built since it would not need a combat engine developed. After I finish learning C++ I'll do this, but it make take me some years.....................
rudy
Reactions:
Posts: 194
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 12:34 am

Re: Concept of New Features

Post by rudy »

I think you should make the MP forum less cumbersome.

The way it is now, you have to enter a Player Name, then a Lobby Account Name, then a password, then confirm your password!

Get real.

It's one reason I don't play MP.

I can never remember what I entered the last time I was on MP, and usually give up.

And entering a password? Twice? From my own computer?

Someone is suffering from paranoia.
rudy
Reactions:
Posts: 194
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 12:34 am

Re: Concept of New Features

Post by rudy »

More carryover.

Onto different start points on a map, or different maps a la Garnier's system.

It makes you play more conservatively, and more realistically.

And more fun.
User avatar
norb
Reactions:
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:59 am
Location: Central Florida
Contact:

Re: Concept of New Features

Post by norb »

I think you should make the MP forum less cumbersome.

The way it is now, you have to enter a Player Name, then a Lobby Account Name, then a password, then confirm your password!

Get real.

It's one reason I don't play MP.

I can never remember what I entered the last time I was on MP, and usually give up.

And entering a password? Twice? From my own computer?

Someone is suffering from paranoia.
You only ever enter that once, it brings it back the next time. I never type all that. I agree, very cumbersome which is why you don't have to do it, it saves it.
rudy
Reactions:
Posts: 194
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 12:34 am

Re: Concept of New Features

Post by rudy »

Oh! You're right!

I haven't been to the MP page for a while, but each time I have in the past, I was required to re-enter all the info, and couldn't remember what I had entered the last time.

I just went there to see, and no I don't have to enter all of the info this time.

Strange.

Maybe I'll play MP more often now.
Post Reply