|
Dimitris posted:From a financial standpoint, game development *is* very difficult. Moreso for independent studios who typically work on a single title at any given time. For every success story that you are aware of, there are untold very serious endeavors that didn't make the cut. Yeah but they already made it and, at this point, its more a matter of marketing ability that they lack the impetus to accomplish, thus bringing them under the spotlight of a larger potential fanbase. The difference, really, is that while there are complexities involved, its pretty foolish to suggest that only the company itself knows what's best for itself at all times, and no outside view can be right.
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:16 |
|
|
Grumio posted:Battlefront should be on steam, but they'd get crucified if they did. Their existing player base accepts the jankiness, bad DLC model, poor performance and unintuitive AI, but that poo poo won't fly for the majority of people (rightfully so!). I don't quite understand why the engine is so bad. It's like their one coder knew how to specifically code this one engine design. But it's lovely. And he refuses to actually learn how to do anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
I mean they'd have to accept some criticism but there's plenty of janky games with poor performance and weird DLC systems doing reasonably fine on Steam. Especially with the DLC. Their model would fit in perfectly fine in Steam. They'd just have to ditch their insane DRM and licensing system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
Isn't it literally one dude doing the engine coding? The one thing I can see from their standpoint regarding Steam, is that a bunch of people would compare it to things like Company of Heroes or Wargame or something, then complain about how terrible the graphics are. And they would be right to complain. But anyone who bothers to track down Battlefront on the web at least knows what a shitfest they are getting into.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
The more I think about this the more I realise that graviteam has basically proven battlefront is full of poo poo. Not only have they got a grog game on steam but they have managed to do it with persistent campaigns, large maps and actual graphics. loving gorgeous graphics infact.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 00:17
|
|
|
I only just realized now that Field of Glory 2 is built on the same engine as Pike and Shot and Sengoku Jidai. Any opinions on those two other games? Also the ease of play for FOG is really making me pine for a Civil War game that's similar
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 02:45
|
|
|
pike and shot is basically field of glory with more shooting and a different dynamic campaign implementation (P&S has a risk-style board dynamic campaign). your mileage may vary on whether it's worth buying another game that's essentially the same but flavored with a different historical period, but having played pike and shot first i like it a lot. it's a fun system that's easy to play and i appreciate that the skirmish battle generator spits out pretty fun battles
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 03:52
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:I mean they'd have to accept some criticism but there's plenty of janky games with poor performance and weird DLC systems doing reasonably fine on Steam. The steam customer base is fine with DLC, it's just that to Battlefront, DLC means "These basic improvements and performance enhancements we made but refuse to back-port for free" I don't see that going down well outside their existing fan bubble
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
Am I stupid or does RtW not have a volume control option?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 05:17
|
|
|
It’s very simple. Going on Steam would force them to step up their customer support and accountability and that ain’t happening. So no Steam.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 05:25
|
|
|
Pirate Radar posted:Am I stupid or does RtW not have a volume control option? Wouldn't surprise me. There's always the mixer in the taskbar as an alternative.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 05:50
|
|
|
Advanced Tactics Gold is $3 in the latest Slitherine Fanatical bundle https://www.fanatical.com/en/bundle/slitherine-bundle-reloaded
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 08:34
|
|
|
Decrepus posted:They perform much better if they have their Pasta Point I have always wanted to seriously attempt playing that game to which you are referring. Spoiler [url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Campaign_for_North_Africa]The Campaign For North Africa[/url]. Its still a ridiculous game, but I could set up an excel document to track most of the ridiculous things you need to track in a couple hours—so its way more feasible than it was in 1978. Just let me take a little extra ritilan and I will be ready to go. 
ZombieLenin fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Jun 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 20:56
|
|
|
Pasta point would be terribly unrealistic in an ancient Rome era game! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 21:59
|
|
|
My understanding is that the rules in Campaign for North Africa are fundamentally broken. Like they never play tested it far enough to end up with something remotely balanced or playable, even if you solve for the extraordinary workload.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
Lunsku posted:Pasta point would be terribly unrealistic in an ancient Rome era game! Ok, we get it...  pastii
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
May the enemy quake in fear at the sight of my advancing pastati
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
The reputation of the Pastati took a real hit at the Battle of Cannaelloni though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
the funniest thing is that that pasta rule isnt even historically accurate
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:the funniest thing is that that pasta rule isnt even historically accurate Are you saying Italians don’t eat spaghetti and meatballs at every meal and talk-a like-a this-a?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
Pirate Radar posted:Are you saying Italians don’t eat spaghetti and meatballs at every meal and talk-a like-a this-a? ayy im invading here
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 12:41
|
|
|
pthighs posted:My understanding is that the rules in Campaign for North Africa are fundamentally broken. Like they never play tested it far enough to end up with something remotely balanced or playable, even if you solve for the extraordinary workload. I'd really like to know in what direction it's unbalanced. Like does Rommel get to Cairo by September 1941 every game or do the British roll to Tripoli two months after the Italians declare war or what.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 13:13
|
|
|
Mussolini hated pasta and tried to get his people to stop eating it
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 13:56
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:I'd really like to know in what direction it's unbalanced. Like does Rommel get to Cairo by September 1941 every game or do the British roll to Tripoli two months after the Italians declare war or what. It's my understanding that tactical bombers are very accurate and very powerful in the game, thus producing very ahistorical results
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 15:55
|
|
|
I am now one of the 0.1% of Field of Glory II players on Steam to have the 'Spartacus' achievement (win a battle against Romans with a slave revolt army).  It was touch and go - not only are your troops extremely low quality, they're very unmaneuverable and your formations are slow to shift. You need to make careful use of the terrain, plan your positioning and facing carefully, focus your forces on weak points in the enemy lines, and make good use of flanking. Your elite units can just about go one-on-one with raw legionaries on open ground, but with any other matchup, you're going to have to start figuring out ways to stack the deck in your favor. Now to do a campaign. 
Mister Bates fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Jun 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 00:41
|
|
|
is fields of glory by the same guys as pike and shot?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 00:54
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:is fields of glory by the same guys as pike and shot? yes
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 00:58
|
|
|
Decided to pick up RTW after I started reading that battleship design book one of you linked a few pages back. So far, I got sacked about 14 turns in? So far this game seems unnecessarily difficult (why am I allowed to choose options that I haven't researched yet?). I'm gonna give it a another go maybe without bankrupting Great Britain with crew training.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 03:02
|
|
|
What the-
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 04:01
|
|
|
What did you do?!?????
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 04:01
|
|
|
How did you a) bankrupt Great Britain and b) get fired in a little more than an in-game year?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 04:06
|
|
|
Rebel Slaves campaign is definitely FoGII in challenge mode, your troops are poo poo and can't do poo poo about poo poo. You have limited light infantry, no cavalry to speak of, and your units are slow and unmaneuverable in addition to being poor at fighting basically everything. I managed to win two campaign battles with them and then two attempts at the third have ended in two one-sided routs - in the second attempt I didn't even manage to rout a single enemy unit before losing. You are especially bad at handling Celtic warbands of any kind - the campaign rolled a battle with Galatians, and their units are so huge numerically that they completely nullified the slaves' one advantage of numbers. You can do okay against the Romans by taking advantage of their relatively small force size, but when the enemy both has superior quality and outnumbers you two to one, there's not very much you can do. Also, a bit annoyed that I generated a campaign with Romans as the opponent and only one of my three campaign battles has been against Romans
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 05:41
|
|
|
Ghostmonkey posted:Decided to pick up RTW after I started reading that battleship design book one of you linked a few pages back. So far, I got sacked about 14 turns in? So far this game seems unnecessarily difficult (why am I allowed to choose options that I haven't researched yet?). I'm gonna give it a another go maybe without bankrupting Great Britain with crew training. Don't train unless you anticipate a war and put the older half of your fleet in mothballs to save money. You probably didn't assign ships to foreign stations right which will not help with the whole getting fired thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 09:47
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:What did you do?!????? $40,000,000 GBP just doesn’t go as far as it used to when you lay down hella hulls, decide to train your crews, and ignore the foreign stations red exclamation mark. Does it make sense to start designing ships immediately, or should I wait for some technological improvements to accumulate, first?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 12:52
|
|
|
Probably as GB you can get away with letting things slide until at least you get large secondary armament tech. Focus on making baby battle-cruisers at first (4x10'' 24/25kt armored cruisers) then once you can mount 10'' guns in secondaries make some wacky stuff like 4x12'' 10x10'' 21kt ships with 12'' armor and they should see you through till you get to build real Dreadnoughts. As GB you have more money than god but your ships are incredibly prone to randomly exploding so you always need more turret and secondary armor. I'd play a game with max fleet size too so you actually have enough money to do stuff, the normal amounts of money the game gives you is incredibly restrictive in what you can do/build compared to history.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 14:04
|
|
|
Aren't 9" guns basically identical to 10" guns on the pen tables for some weird reason? Cruisers can get away with 9" which gives you a bit more tonnage to play with for speed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 14:19
|
|
|
Saros posted:Focus on making baby battle-cruisers at first (4x10'' 24/25kt armored cruisers) then once you can mount 10'' guns in secondaries make some wacky stuff like 4x12'' 10x10'' 21kt ships with 12'' armor and they should see you through till you get to build real Dreadnoughts. I'm not nearly well-versed enough in naval history to know why that's wacky, but I keep seeing comments like this from RtW goons and was hoping I could get an explanation as to why certain things that seem to me like "a bunch of big guns on a metal ship, which is what a dreadnought or battleship is" seem obviously crazy and ahistorical to others.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 14:43
|
|
|
Flavius Aetass posted:I'm not nearly well-versed enough in naval history to know why that's wacky, but I keep seeing comments like this from RtW goons and was hoping I could get an explanation as to why certain things that seem to me like "a bunch of big guns on a metal ship, which is what a dreadnought or battleship is" seem obviously crazy and ahistorical to others. When your ship consists only of guns and sky-high towers filled with more guns at the expense of any common engineering sense (such as making sure said towers won't topple when hit by a single cannonball), it's: a) exactly this, b) the true RTW experience.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
Flavius Aetass posted:I'm not nearly well-versed enough in naval history to know why that's wacky, but I keep seeing comments like this from RtW goons and was hoping I could get an explanation as to why certain things that seem to me like "a bunch of big guns on a metal ship, which is what a dreadnought or battleship is" seem obviously crazy and ahistorical to others. I think the former ditches all/most armor protection for the sake of big guns and speed, while the latter is like Warhammer 40k fortress that floats.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 14:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:16 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:Aren't 9" guns basically identical to 10" guns on the pen tables for some weird reason? Cruisers can get away with 9" which gives you a bit more tonnage to play with for speed. Yeah 10" have always been like that. I haven't dived into the game files to see if they have substantially more HE than 9"s but I've always used either 9"s or 11"s. Also hot beginner tip, early on eating that 20% ROF penalty for double 8" or smaller turrets is often well worth it for weight saving, especially when you can only fit two turrets. 2x2 8" is still a lot better than 2 x 1 8", even with a 20% penalty, and weights a lot less than retarded French 4 x 1 poo poo which only lets you bring 3 guns to bear anyway, or a 25% penalty effectively. Actually more than that because more guns per salvo = more chance to hit. Flavius Aetass posted:I'm not nearly well-versed enough in naval history to know why that's wacky, but I keep seeing comments like this from RtW goons and was hoping I could get an explanation as to why certain things that seem to me like "a bunch of big guns on a metal ship, which is what a dreadnought or battleship is" seem obviously crazy and ahistorical to others. The last pre dreads that we tend to build in game are wacky because we are basically trying to make dreadnoughts early. IRL pre dreads had 4 main, usually 4-8 medium then 8 - 16 light guns. With our hind sight we know that all big guns is what you want, but when the game won't let you do that you take light main armament then stack the heaviest possible secondary armament, effectively your secondaries become your main. This is a design philosophy that can only emerge when you want to build all big guns but can't, IRL when they worked this out they just built dreadnoughts. Pharnakes fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Jun 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 15:25
|
|