A work of art in game form
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:25 am
After neglecting urgent work to play this as much as possible over the last 2 days, I have just come up for air after my first Brilliant Victory, and felt inspired to comment.
This game is a work of art.
The art comes from paring away all the unnecessary complexity so that the elegance of the design shines through.
What I particularly admire in the design:
AI. The AI has caught me several times through exploiting a weakness in my line to put half my army out of supply.
Your AI leaves FOG and Panzer Corps in the dirt as a singleplayer challenge.
Specialists. The many unit types in Panzer Corps add complexity, making the game a tactical juggling act with too many variables. Your specialists allow unit variety and customisation while still leaving the base infantry divisions as they were in reality - standard units.
ZOC and front line. Simple rules, yet with great depth. It has taken me many plays, plus looking closely at ComradeP's AARs (many thanks!) to understand the implications.
Supply rules. Executed even more elegantly than in Schwerpunkt's Russo-German War. The choice of where to put the +1 is exactly the sort of "interesting decision" that makes a great strategy game - take the short term benefit to supply my current spearhead, or the other supply source I know I will need for the final push?
Theater assets. Great easy abstract way to handle air power, building supply infrastructure, bridging, partisans, etc. Looking forward to paratroopers and naval bombardment in future releases! (PS/ should weather reduce air strikes?)
User interface/polish. Shames developers with much greater resources.
In my view, this game is much better than Panzer Corps.
Some thoughts for future development. All focused on the UoC experience, since I think the developers should be appropriately cautious before adding bells and whistles to the Mona Lisa:
1) Multiplayer. The puzzle-nature of the scenarios will keep me interested for weeks. To stay played for years, you need multiplayer to work. It won't work in the current setup - too much trouble. Apply the same elegance of design to the multiplayer interface that you have to the game engine and you will have a winner - look to the PBEM functionality as Slitherine on Panzer Corps as a start
2) Community. The strength of community you build will impact whether this game is around for a year or much longer. The game is crying out for a developer/player-supported wiki to help newcomers up the steep learning curve. Needed now to help build the buzz and reduce the numbers of buyers who drop because it is "too hard". Forums are not ideal for this - too many different threads. And you need critical mass in a forum - don't fragment across Matrix and here, pick one or the other to build (and black background is hard to read!). More PR would help too - you need full reviews on Wargamer, Rock Paper Shotgun, Three Moves Ahead etc.
3) Business Model. I am sure your focus currently is on launch. However, I think it is worth sparing a thought now for the future business model. Will it be free updates, with user-contributed additional scenarios, relying on attracting new players into the base game for funding (Minecraft model)? Or a radical alternative, still possible at this stage - move to a low monthly charge with continuous free expansions, incentivizing everyone to support the community (WOW)? I would explore alternatives to the PanzerCorps path, with paid expansions - under this model, funding is guaranteed to taper off as every expansion sells less and less.
4) Format. If you want to be really brave, port this game to android and iPad tablets. Maybe introduce anew generation to the joys of WWII turn based strategy!
Just some ideas, the loving care that went into this game deserves a wider audience.
This game is a work of art.
The art comes from paring away all the unnecessary complexity so that the elegance of the design shines through.
What I particularly admire in the design:
AI. The AI has caught me several times through exploiting a weakness in my line to put half my army out of supply.
Your AI leaves FOG and Panzer Corps in the dirt as a singleplayer challenge.
Specialists. The many unit types in Panzer Corps add complexity, making the game a tactical juggling act with too many variables. Your specialists allow unit variety and customisation while still leaving the base infantry divisions as they were in reality - standard units.
ZOC and front line. Simple rules, yet with great depth. It has taken me many plays, plus looking closely at ComradeP's AARs (many thanks!) to understand the implications.
Supply rules. Executed even more elegantly than in Schwerpunkt's Russo-German War. The choice of where to put the +1 is exactly the sort of "interesting decision" that makes a great strategy game - take the short term benefit to supply my current spearhead, or the other supply source I know I will need for the final push?
Theater assets. Great easy abstract way to handle air power, building supply infrastructure, bridging, partisans, etc. Looking forward to paratroopers and naval bombardment in future releases! (PS/ should weather reduce air strikes?)
User interface/polish. Shames developers with much greater resources.
In my view, this game is much better than Panzer Corps.
Some thoughts for future development. All focused on the UoC experience, since I think the developers should be appropriately cautious before adding bells and whistles to the Mona Lisa:
1) Multiplayer. The puzzle-nature of the scenarios will keep me interested for weeks. To stay played for years, you need multiplayer to work. It won't work in the current setup - too much trouble. Apply the same elegance of design to the multiplayer interface that you have to the game engine and you will have a winner - look to the PBEM functionality as Slitherine on Panzer Corps as a start
2) Community. The strength of community you build will impact whether this game is around for a year or much longer. The game is crying out for a developer/player-supported wiki to help newcomers up the steep learning curve. Needed now to help build the buzz and reduce the numbers of buyers who drop because it is "too hard". Forums are not ideal for this - too many different threads. And you need critical mass in a forum - don't fragment across Matrix and here, pick one or the other to build (and black background is hard to read!). More PR would help too - you need full reviews on Wargamer, Rock Paper Shotgun, Three Moves Ahead etc.
3) Business Model. I am sure your focus currently is on launch. However, I think it is worth sparing a thought now for the future business model. Will it be free updates, with user-contributed additional scenarios, relying on attracting new players into the base game for funding (Minecraft model)? Or a radical alternative, still possible at this stage - move to a low monthly charge with continuous free expansions, incentivizing everyone to support the community (WOW)? I would explore alternatives to the PanzerCorps path, with paid expansions - under this model, funding is guaranteed to taper off as every expansion sells less and less.
4) Format. If you want to be really brave, port this game to android and iPad tablets. Maybe introduce anew generation to the joys of WWII turn based strategy!
Just some ideas, the loving care that went into this game deserves a wider audience.