[quote=" Teutomatos"][quote=" ransombolton"]
If we ONLY make t, exactly like the hardcore crowd wants it, it would sell to the hardcore crowd, and only to the hardcore crowd. And I am not saying this because of money. I am saying this because we want to revive the series. But if the only persons buyi,en Strike 4 are the hardcore crowds, chances for a Sudden Strike 5 or 6 would be very low. So we need to make it easier for new players to get into the game, at least for the base game. That way, the Sudden Strike series will be revived, new players will come into this community and that would be a good thing for all of us, right?
[/quote]
Not right. May be good to ear for the person behind the desk at the bank, no more.
You miss the point. Everyone have in conscience that passion, for developpement or gaming pleasure, needs a support of financial background. That's entertainement. This is what you hear in. And all of us, wish you a great sucess, if you deserve it.
Enlarge a panel of new players is never a problem if the game working well, and offer a quality of mecanisms.
Sometimes it s more complicated, it s happen often that promotion is the key ... But it's not the reason of our discuss here.
Players are paradoxaly gregaric and versatil. Gregaric because they don't love to change theirs uses even if sometimes its bad. Versatil because most of them like to change often theirs platforms. This is the price of a bloated market.
Against versatilities you can't do nothin. Except may be one thing, catch them by acuteness and poignancy. And make them the new generation of hardcore players. Socle and pedestal for the future.
Request of hardcore gamers are never superior at the new players attempt. They want a good game, all of them. Just hard core gamers got experiences of advantages or lacking gameplay before and knows that, with times, quality and pleasure are in the details.
Original success of Sudden strike based on its singularities of micro managing, according to complementarities of the units beetween them.
Don't loose that last point !
Careful, cause actualy we don t seen fundamental complementarities beetween long infantry vision and lack of it for tanks ... Or not enough.
If you read well beetween the lines of générics comments, you ll catch the first anxiety about shooting distances. It s a point ! But ... Mostly a consequence of vision, first, of course.
It s a kind of details that an hardcore gamers company feel instinctivly. It s the difference beetween some others new consumers. But don t mistake, they learn it soon as well. And it s not a question of difficulties. New players learn the rules of the game without problems. Except if the things are not clear and a bad accomodation under dark and fallacious arguments that want to simplify their lives.
Medals and gratifications are not a problem. Even if it s looks like super Mario and we had prefered in place a better effort on air force system for example. But tacticals mecanics, a little bit more ...
In summary that we ll expecting are the sticking defects of the olders versions, but not the restriction of original benefits under that it would not be a hypothetical universal sensitivity and reflect actual market.
And spend half of times repearing tanks is cool, but it s not a "complete" game. If i was a new player, actualy watching videos, it that kind of feeling i ll got.
Did you follow me ?
At that point what is the defect of the olders versions ?
Altude ... Because 2D isométric limitations. Climb the hill and it s vision effect, like fire distance or angulation which could not exist, and poor air forces mecanisms.
he sle of uts on t plan map. Means the restrictiv vision of the battle field on our screen. This is a real challenge, watching more larger map and in same time improve the perception of details and units ... A question of photographic focal more than zoom traveling
bscencof ffents Tans plato layout's cmands in regular military order of movement and position. Line, column, interleaf, advanced arrow, refuse on right , refuse on left ...
nd thbadesthing . imasurable iniquity unitorcesace to ce.n same times with the respect of historical adequacy values ... An another big deal !
Do you think RansomBolton that SS4 improve these aspects ? ( With out removes the good ones )
Thank for your attention, and all our best wishes for the futur.[/quote]
Ok so it is very hard for me to understand all of this. I believe it is because of translation issues. But if I gather it correctly, you wish that we fix some problems of the old SuS games without sacrficing what good things the series always had? I think we are on the same page then because that is what we try to do.
As for your questions:
[quote]Altitude ... Because 2D isométric limitations. Climb the hill and it s vision effect, like fire distance or angulation which could not exist, and poor air forces mecanisms.[/quote]
I think you are talking about high differences? Yes, I believe we can deliver a better way of dealing with them in Sudden Strike 4 because of 3D terrain and a better visualization of what differences that actually brings for each unit.
[quote]The scale of units on the plan map. Means the restrictiv vision of the battle field on our screen. This is a real challenge, watching more larger map and in same time improve the perception of details and units ... A question of photographic focal more than zoom traveling [/quote]
This is a two-edged sword. If I understand correctly, you feel that the old Sudden Strike games never did a good job of giving you a good view of your units, especially on large maps? If so, I think we found a good middle way between map sizes and actual readability of units for Sudden Strike 4.
[quote]Abscence of differents Tank's platoon layout's commands in regular military order of movement and position. Line, column, interleaf, advanced arrow, refuse on right , refuse on left ... [/quote]
You are talking about formations, right? Well, it might be good to hear for you that we are thinking of implementing formations at the moment.
[quote]And the badest thing ... immeasurable iniquity of unit forces face to face. In same times with the respect of historical adequacy values ... An another big deal ! [/quote]
Ok this point I do not get. Can you specify it?