Len Vandenberg
Canada
Petawawa
Ontario
-
So.....I am loving most things about this game...BUT...the choice of side view for the armour counters!
Can't get over how ridiculous it looks sometimes when I have counters upside down to my point of view in order to maintain a certain arc of fire.
I know, I know...get over it; but for me eye candy (maps, counters, player aids) count, and if the artwork is not pleasing, it creates an obstacle to my enjoyment.
So, putting aside my opinion on this questionable design choice (can't think of another tactical game that need indicate arcs of fire that has chosen this view) here is my request/challenge.
A lot of folks out there in this community with the graphic ability to create some top down version of the pieces...any taker's on?
I will forever be in their debt 
-
Pete Gerardy
Canada
LaBroquerie
Manitoba
-
Here's a little info on why the side views were chosen http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?14@790.Ze6pcnQy7aG.4447026@...
-
Michael Edwards
United States
Everett
Washington
YA RL'YAH
Phnglui mglw nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah nagl fhtagn! With cheeze!
-
I must admit I find the whole issue amusing, but this is probably because I find the side view perfectly fine. One thing I don't understand is that some get very worked up about the vehicles not being in a top view - a silhouette only pilots would get to view - yet have no issue about the troops being a side view. Very weird.
I prefer to think of the counter art as depictions of the view that those fighting the battles might see, and that a side view for the tanks is just more interesting than a front view.
-
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
-
Chanfan wrote: One thing I don't understand is that some get very worked up about the vehicles not being in a top view - a silhouette only pilots would get to view - yet have no issue about the troops being a side view. Very weird.
Perhaps for some wargamers, machines are more important/interesting than people are?
-
Orion J.N. Winder
United States
Summerville
South Carolina
ALL ACCESS - ALL THE TIME - DON'T EVEN ASK
-
I DO totally agree with the premise of the counter art being a graphical fail, as I'm also very much taken by topdown art for tactical imaging of this sort, not the side view. Seems like a no brainer to me, but there's a lot of fanboys here that REALLY seem to get their knickers in a knot at the concept that it's not perfect.
We've gone over this subject in another thread, but I'm not sure the link. I'm also not sold on the top flipping, but that's not quite as visually bad, just not as mechanically user friendly for an old grognard.
But I love the game, anyway, though it might be replaced by a remake of Panzer/Armor/88 in visual taste. I'm a big fan of that system also, and with new graphics I think it'll be great.
-
William Garramone
United States
Nashville
Tennessee
-
Chanfan wrote: I must admit I find the whole issue amusing, but this is probably because I find the side view perfectly fine. One thing I don't understand is that some get very worked up about the vehicles not being in a top view - a silhouette only pilots would get to view - yet have no issue about the troops being a side view. Very weird.
I prefer to think of the counter art as depictions of the view that those fighting the battles might see, and that a side view for the tanks is just more interesting than a front view. I can answer that easily. Not having played the game, I'm assuming that infantry don't have "facing". If vehicles DO have a facing, then top down perspective makes Waaaaaay better sense to me. As I've said before, after YEARS of playing ASL with all of its' various vehicles, I've never had any problem distinguishing between 'types'. I was just happy that that a top down perspective was supplied because it makes it so much easier to grasp covered arcs and such. Nope, nothing "weird" about it in my eyes.
-
Orion J.N. Winder
United States
Summerville
South Carolina
ALL ACCESS - ALL THE TIME - DON'T EVEN ASK
-
The more I play this, the more I'm convinced that the sideview guns/vehicles are a Graphical Epic Fail,... as kinda in; "Missed it by THAT much".
Actually took the game off the play table last night and replaced it with an ASL scenerio, as I got tired of looking at tired tanks, and mistaking size of units. It's made me also think about re-breaking out my Panzer/Armor/88 combo again, and having another go at it.
I liked the overall play of this game, but there are several small issues that have bugged me about it pretty much since the get go, and I'm having second thoughts about continuing to support it when the inevitable expansions arrive, unlike CC:E/M/P which I still enjoy termendously. Some might find this petty, but I've tons of games that can hit the table, and don't REALLY need another series to keep up on anyway Wow, a good reason to save a $ or two 
-
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
-
OrionDD wrote: I got tired of looking at tired tanks, and mistaking size of units.
I don't really care about top-down vs side-view of the tanks.
(And it seems weirdly inconsistent to me that people can insist on top-down views for tanks yet be content with side views for soldiers.)
But I must agree that I'm not a fan of the size being indicated by the tiny dots in the corners instead of by the larger main tank/soldier icons. The Combat Commander "number of figures" system makes unit size much clearer at a glance. The FF "tiny dots in the corner" system is much too subtle and much less easy to see at a glance.
-
Orion J.N. Winder
United States
Summerville
South Carolina
ALL ACCESS - ALL THE TIME - DON'T EVEN ASK
-
russ wrote: OrionDD wrote: I got tired of looking at tired tanks, and mistaking size of units. I don't really care about top-down vs side-view of the tanks. (And it seems weirdly inconsistent to me that people can insist on top-down views for tanks yet be content with side views for soldiers.) But I must agree that I'm not a fan of the size being indicated by the tiny dots in the corners instead of by the larger main tank/soldier icons. The Combat Commander "number of figures" system makes unit size much clearer at a glance. The FF "tiny dots in the corner" system is much too subtle and much less easy to see at a glance.
The soldiers don't have a "facing" but the vehicles do, thus the side profile is totally counter-intuitive to phrase a bad pun.
As far as other graphical "Fails" the size dots are major as well as the flipping of the square counters; totally 90 degrees from most every other wargame I've ever played. Hence the term, "Graphic Fail", or "Missed it by THAT much!"
IMHO they explain it by attempting to make all the counters flip the same direction, but the long ones automatically flip on their long axis, but normally all square counters flip side to side. Perhaps somewhat OVER inovative would be the word... something like the Edsel.
Anyway, it's sad but I believe it's a star that just might not rise as high as it could have, if all the ducks had been in the right row from the get go.
-
|
|
