Login

StrategyM · 03-28-2003, 08:20 PM

Taken this off the R:TW thread to avoid hijacking it further. 
 
One pet peeve I've always had, is that strategy games never set the level of your command. 
 
Well, here you hit against one of the core issues in the "realism vs gameplay" discussion. Now personally, I don't agree that such a conflict really exists, but there is a conflict between the level of abstraction and gameplay. Very often, trying to select a level of abstraction which seems closer to real life ends up making for a boring game. 
 
The stellar example probably being Peter Turcan's napoleonic war games ... attempts to be very realistic, and ends up being rather boring. The problem with these kind of games is that it is very hard to transmit to the player the same kind of tension & excitement that an army commander must have felt on the field of battle. The player, after all, does not stand to loose his life & see his country enslaved if he fouls up. 
 
The opposite end of the spectrum, of course, is the sort where you have to micro-manage every aspect of the battle, since none of your units are able to think on their own. Not very realistic, but a good deal more fun to play. 
 
There are also the strictly abstract system - such as the GBOH games. 
 
And then, of course, you have a game like Legion, where the tactical battle is really just an abstraction for an auto-combat resolution system. 
 
Despite the problems, I tend more toward a Peter Turcan style game than the STW/Praetorian or GBOH system. The main reason being that in the latter two cases, the AI will unavoidably foul up in the game and loose out to any competent human player. And in Imperium, such a tactical engine would be a problem - what's the point of representing Hannibal, if any two-bit Roman general is going to walk all over him with half his force? 
 
I have the fond hope that with the right presentation, a good user interface, and pacier gameplay, a Peter Turcan style game should provide a good battle game experience, but that supposition remains to be tested. 
 
But I'd be interested in hearing what it is you people consider to be the "fun" in tactical battle games you've played. 
 
 
Strategy 
Designer/Developer 
Imperium - Rise of Rome

JRSCline · 03-28-2003, 09:34 PM

I remember when I first played Shogun Total War, I nearly wet myself when I saw how beautiful the game's battlefield terrain was, with the armies arrayed in serried ranks and banners flying. 
 
After I got finished changing my pants, I played a battle and admired the way the Total War engine simulated the clash of units, the confusion, and the tremendous effect of outflanking and envelopment upon morale. I think it's absolutely imperative that any simulated battle should be decided not principally upon body count, but upon the ebb and flow of morale. After all, the majority of casualties occurred not during the "scrum," but in the rout after one side gives away. 
 
This was what made the WWII game Close Combat so fascinating -- the tension of watching anxiously to see if your troops' morale would hold out long enough for them to take the farmhouse, or the bridge. 
 
What's most compelling about war is the human drama, the exhileration and tragedy. You should build your battle simulation around morale. 
 
Cheers 
Jenny

03-31-2003, 04:59 PM

...at the risk of sounding shallow. Graphics are important! You just can't deny the fact that poorly rendered graphics detract from the best game mechanics (either PC or board based). In fact, the graphics excellence of the TW series serves to hide some of its gameplay flaws - not that you'll need to do that StrategyM. 
 
I'm not stating that you need absolutly fabulous groundbreaking wiz bang graphics - but you do need some level of graphics quality in a 3D engine in 2003. I think that a "Legion" level visual experience would be the baseline here. 
 
Regards, 
Barkhorn.

StrategyM · 03-31-2003, 07:09 PM

In fact, the graphics excellence of the TW series serves to hide some of its gameplay flaws - not that you'll need to do that StrategyM. 
 
Careful now - all this flattering might go to my head. 
 
Besides, I'm not sure I'd agree on the last point; it's difficult to see the whole when your head is dug into the details. I'll feel more sure that the gameplay in Imperium is going to end up good when I see the entire thing come together. 
 
But I agree with both of you. I also think that the "human factor" is the most important element of such a battle simulation; and this is without a doubt one of the strengths of the total war games (where the human factor is strongly exaggerated). And vivid graphics of course strengthens the impact of this. 
 
Interesting that you should consider the "Legion" graphics a baseline. I haven't played the game, but from what I've seen of the screenshots, I'd consider them slightly below the base-line myself, though I have heard some state that the screenshots don't really do the game justice. 
 
Strategy 
Designer/Developer 
Imperium - Rise of Rome

04-01-2003, 12:42 PM

Nice response StrategyM - sounds like you have a very good vision of where you want to go here and I wish you all the best as what you are attempting is a game I will want to play. 
 
As far as that "Legion" graphics comment goes - I did say "base-line" - if you can do better than that AND provide superior game-play then....we have a WINNER!!

04-02-2003, 12:55 PM

I also enjoy how other units work together, or can be particularily effective against specific kinds of units. Like Artillery vs Infantry (where artillery is poor against armour). Another example of this, is combined ops, using cavalry and infantry together, in such a way that they actually do what they are supposed to do. I guess that has to do with how the software is written though. 
Magnus/Matt 
Optio 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix"

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Roman Battles on Computer	Q Rutilius	26	4,862	03-23-2004, 12:30 PM Last Post: JRSCline