Forum Replies Created
Yes, the Internet can indeed bring out the worst in people at times. I suppose computers and phones can make people feel separated from whoever they are trolling/griefing etc.
I’ll try and send out a new beta update this week. There will be quite a few changes to the way leaders work in it.
Ah yes, those painful loading times on the C64! Especially for any complex games. It was even more painful when the game would load to the point the game should start, and then your greeted with a blue “READY” screen!
You certainly seem to know your history on this! Certainly agree with you that central and eastern Europe bore the brunt of Napoleon’s armies. I’ll be sure to call on you if I make a game about this.
If you would like to share some images here of your work in your painting then that would be great! I get a kick out of stuff like that! I recently went to a wargames show called Colours in Newbury. Fantastic to see all those wargames laid out!
Thank you for your kind words! 🙂
You make a good case for Wagram! It could make an interesting game, and I can’t remember ever seeing that battle portrayed in another game before.
I know the TRS80! I do have an obsessive interest in retro computers! Unfortunately, I’ve never actually used one, and only ever seen one in a shop window of an electronics shop. Personally I started on the Commodore 64 (Also showing my age a bit here!). As to the look of the graphics, they were originally inspired by a game i used to play on the Commodore Amiga called Fields of Glory.
Thank you for your thoughts! 🙂 I will be returning to the horse and musket era. However, the human race has been happily killing one another for thousands of years, so there is a lot of history to make a Pixel Soldiers game out of!
Happy to hear you like the games, but would like to hear what your pet peeves are. I might be able to fix them.
One thing that I decided early on with the Pixel Soldiers games was that the battlefield should be as streamlined as possible. Just units, terrain, and the effects of battle. It would be quite difficult to have an authentic army organisation without things looking a bit untidy and complicated. But I could be wrong on that. Today I’ve been experimenting with adding an HQ unit into the Great War game which will soon be sent out to the beta testers. I’ll be trying new things and see what works. I’ll then adapt the changes to the horse and musket era.
Will anyone miss the current system of pressing the attach button to add the leader to a unit? Currently the leader isn’t displayed on the field and is only visible when attached to a unit.
It is difficult. Tabletop games and video games are different things, but ideas here and there can be translated across platforms. Finding ways to implement surprise results, and keeping games on a knife edge without the player feeling at the mercy of an RNG system, is a difficult one!
Admittedly I don’t know all that much about the Arabian units during the war. I’ll look into it.
I am aware of Joni’s games. I think you make some fair comparisons. Whereas his games have mastered the operational level hex style game, my games are more focused on a table top wargame style.
One thing I want to keep with the Pixel Soldiers games is the way a player can just pick it up and instantly start playing with it. For that reason I’m always very cautious about adding anything that could add to the complexity of the games. So I like the idea of a hierarchy of commanders, but I do think it would need to be implemented carefully.
I am thinking about watering down the importance of LP’s in the game, making proximity to an HQ more important. I’m thinking about allowing units to recover from disorder and rally from a rout anywhere on the battlefield, but if near to an HQ, the leader can use LP’s to increase the odds for success. Just an idea right now.
Thanks for the ideas and also, welcome to the forum IJN_Admiral! 🙂
There’s two main problems I have with the leadership system in the Great War game. First, some of the battles can get very large so 5LP is a pretty paltry amount for the size of the armies. Second, leaders didn’t lead from the front. (You never had Field Marshal Haig leading a front line unit on horse back! )
So here’s some thoughts I’ve had:
-Have 1 or more HQ units that can move similar to other units in the map.
-Depending on the size of the battle, have historical commanders you can add to the generals “staff”, at the start of a battle, to increase LP and give other advantages depending on the general.
-HQ units have a command radius like IJN_Admiral mentioned. Units within the radius get a bonus and have LP costs halfed. (so units within the HQ radius are more LP cost effective)
These are just design notes. None of this is concrete, so I’m inviting you guys and anyone else to let me know your thoughts on these things.
Also, I’m thinking mainly about the Great War game. Any leadership changes can be different for the other games in the series. After all, the way 20th century armies were led was far different from the Napoleonic era.
Thanks! I’ve not tried Discord before. I’ll give a look and let you know if I create a server.
Thanks for the support! Only The Great War beta has immersive mode right now. The other games will be updated after the beta is final.
Sorry. Will be rolling out a new update today with a bunch of changes to do with tanks and breaching. Thanks for letting me know.
Interesting idea. Thanks! 😀