Suggestion: combat results

[gcbisset]

So happy to hear of a new developer who can make good AI!

 

My suggestion is that you add an optional combat results button that would put a little box up and inform the solo player of at least the most significant combat events, and pause the game until clicked. I myself don't play any of the RTS games because of the WTF? Factor, where I don't know what is happening. Im also not in a rush to play, prefer to play slowly. Most players would not use this feature, but I think youd get a lot of the turn-based people to buy a game.

 

Keep up the good work!

 

George

[David Fair]

Hi George,

 

You can use the pause button at any time.  

 

Not certain what events you want highlighted with the prompt?

 

You can see morale, condition, etc. so you should be able to play at your own pace and quickly determine the unit status of where stuff is happening.

[gcbisset]

Yes, pausing is good, but a combat results box is quicker then going on a map walk thru all the units.

 

I assume that within the real time a number of events are being calculated such as "X unit loses 15 men to fire, passes morale check, etc"  tho I don't know what exactly those events would be. Im just suggesting it be possible to see these events as they are calculated. A small "console" might display these major events as well.

[MikeK]

The scripted messages about arrivals and VP status could be supplemented by other messages of a high enough level of tactical importance to be brought to the attention of the commander on the field.  But message/pop-up clutter should be avoided.

 

Having a results console works with a turn-based game or with a pause system, otherwise the player is reading the screen rather than looking over the battle.  Some games have floating text casualties and other results appear  beside affected units, but the game looks so good without them. The status of the flags provides some cues, but what is either largely missing or too subtle and is important is the visual cue that a unit is beginning to waver and needs some attention before it starts to fall back or fall apart. The line might become uneven, flags waver, troops fall back slightly out of line, or some break off "helping the wounded" in the rear, etc. Whether with eyesight, a telescope, or from the player's hovering station in the clouds, humans can become adept at processing this subtle information (especially if they know consciously that it is there). 

 

Likewise, the regularity and volume of the fire (itself represented by animations, sounds and puffs of smoke etc. here) is a guide to unit condition and how hotly it is engaged with the enemy. 

 

Some of this may be in there but subtle enough that I've not consciously identified it.

[gcbisset]

That's why I say it should be optional, as different people are going to want a different llo and different levels of feedback.

 

Another group of people who can use a game with good AI are solo miniature players. If the feedback is pausable and has enough detail, they can use it for miniature games. I think they would pay a lot for something useful for this.

 

In fact, a separate version of the game with this feature might sell well if it is difficult to modify the original.