Red Storm would sell better if OTS...

[CapnDarwin]

Think of this one a simple market survey on how we can reach more wargamers and improve our base number of customers. Pretty light thinking for a Sunday afternoon. [;)]

Comments welcome as usual.

[SwampYankee68]

Steam has such a vast audience. It seems logical to me that after selling it via Matrix to your core audience and making as much profit that way as possible, you offer it to a wider audience via steam - Maybe 6 months later? I know your cut is less that way, but you'll be selling more copies. As an aside, I think Plodder's maps made the game much more visually appealing. Graphics do matter to me.

[jack54]

I picked 'More scenarios and campaigns' but anything that would keep the game in Martix's rotating windows is good.

People could jump on board if they see the game has continued support. (Now don't yell at me but it doesn't all have to be FREE either LOL)

I think most gamers also check the forums before they buy a game verifying that a game is still 'Alive" so to speak.

I'm not on Steam but can't really argue with that decision; a lot of people are.

[CaptCarnage]

Obviously more advertising.

Especially with a second Cold War looming. And that's not a cruel joke, it's how it is.

[WABAC]

Find a home (several homes) for user created scenarios and mods. I think of that as advertising.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: WABAC

Find a home (several homes) for user created scenarios and mods. I think of that as advertising.

+1

[Jafele]

Regular updates are very important to sell better and keep the game alive along the years. That means: Fixing bugs, adding new features that you can introduce from other new games, upgrades, etc. Of course using the same engine for all the games you release helps a lot. First thing people notice in forums is the lack of activity (state of abandon).

A game is like a child, the more you take care of him the better will be. [:D] People tend to buy the latest "child" you give birth, although if your little children are healthy they will get all of then. [:)]

[Phoenix100]

Sadly, the answer is probably to do with marketing, not with content, but for me I REALLY wish it wasn't so blocky, hexy and artificial, in terms of the maps. Can we not have maps that actually look like real world maps? I guess that would entail a finer mesh, perhaps. But why can't the maps be like the Command Ops maps, for example? For me this is connected to the 'board games' question and the response which someone gave about board games being dead. This game still looks like it was ported from a board game, for me, and though it plays beautifully, that spoils the immersion. I like to be able to go to google earth (or the real world) and look at where things are happening. Why do computer games, in this day and age, have to look like the board games of yesteryear? Why can't you just make take a real map, use that? It's probably a stupid question/desire. I'm ignorant of the programming issues. But, like I said, Command Ops features absolutely superb mapping, so why not this game?

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Sadly, the answer is probably to do with marketing, not with content, but for me I REALLY wish it wasn't so blocky, hexy and artificial, in terms of the maps. Can we not have maps that actually look like real world maps? I guess that would entail a finer mesh, perhaps. But why can't the maps be like the Command Ops maps, for example? For me this is connected to the 'board games' question and the response which someone gave about board games being dead. This game still looks like it was ported from a board game, for me, and though it plays beautifully, that spoils the immersion. I like to be able to go to google earth (or the real world) and look at where things are happening. Why do computer games, in this day and age, have to look like the board games of yesteryear? Why can't you just make take a real map, use that? It's probably a stupid question/desire. I'm ignorant of the programming issues. But, like I said, Command Ops features absolutely superb mapping, so why not this game?

Because none us of are graphics artists. Artwork either costs considerably OR you have someone on the team that is an artist. That's the two finite choices we have.

I guess at this point the question is, would you pay more for a game with better graphics? Because to get them to you it will cost. And that cost is not inconsiderable.

Good Hunting.

MR

[CapnDarwin]

Phoenix, I'm not overly familiar with the Command Ops maps, but they are basically filled polygon regions. They can be "more exact" to edges and roads since they move units in a per pixel fashion versus a per hex. A lot of that has to do with the nature of real time versus turn based too. If you want real maps you can make maps from google earth and do the location coding in the editor for them. We used google maps in early testing before we got the current maps going. "Real" maps work well if your system is real time with very small move increments. Since we are using turns the best approach is a hex map and those maps need small adjustments from their real world counterparts in order to function within the game engine.

[Phoenix100]

Thanks MR and Capn Darwin. The game is great - I hope I said that too - [:)]I just crave that it looked like a real world or planning map, and not a hex based board game. Would I pay more for a trace of a google earth map? Yes. Is it an issue - as you suggest, MR, with graphic capability - I doubt it, since your maps are full of style and graphic ability, just not that type of style. I get the point, however, that turns and large move increments might just mean that hexes work better, but that doesn't seem to make Combat Mission look like that, for example, when you play it as a turn-based game. And anyway - even if you favour a big grid (whether hexes or otherwise)- is it not possible to map it to the real world grid more accurately (the discrepancies are easy to see in The Plodder's excellent tour, for example) or just to disguise the terrain so it looks like a real map instead of a hex-based board game ported to computer (after all, that's what you say Command Ops does - disguises the underlying grid - and Command Ops maps almost exactly to google earth and looks 'real')? I'm not sure you should bother replying to these issues, to be honest, though, as I think most people - despite the emerging poll results - are actually happy playing a hex based game that looks like the old board games used to look (well - a lot more sophisticated, in fact...). So it's probably just my personal bug-bear. Like I said, the game plays great - so maybe just ignore me!

Peter

[budd]

Keep improving the modding capabilities, have a central storage for mods. Mix in free extra content with paid content, this will keep the forums active.Maintain presence in forums. Port as many of the changes as you can to keep older titles up to date which will entice people to maybe jump into a series on a cheaper older game. have a sale and include the original flashpoint as a advertising point. Don't the costs of putting a game on steam but it couldn't hurt, i think you'd need a demo for steam to jump it off.

[Emx77]

My answers were:

a) Made the game look better. By this, I mean prettier maps. Yes, you guys are not graphic artists but that aspect adds a lot of immersion for significant number of potential buyers. FC: RS is serious game, make it look serious. Do map buildings to look like buildings, not like some weird lego blocks scattered randomly across hex. Fortunately, we have Ploder, and especially W1ll14m, who IMHO made much better looking maps than original ones. What is problem of hiring artist now, when you have your product established (and hopefully some cash reserve from selling it) to do something like this?

b) Fixed all of the bugs in the game engine. Ok, The game is great but to be honest, I'm waiting nine months for you to fix "Sudden Death Issue". I'm stopped playing because of this. Patch process is painfully slow.

c) Sold the game on Steam. This one is obvious, I don't think it needs special elaboration.

You made good job so far, but I feel it is like 90% completed. Put some more effort to achieve 100% and game will be truly excellent.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Thanks MR and Capn Darwin. The game is great - I hope I said that too - [:)]I just crave that it looked like a real world or planning map, and not a hex based board game. Would I pay more for a trace of a google earth map? Yes. Is it an issue - as you suggest, MR, with graphic capability - I doubt it, since your maps are full of style and graphic ability, just not that type of style. I get the point, however, that turns and large move increments might just mean that hexes work better, but that doesn't seem to make Combat Mission look like that, for example, when you play it as a turn-based game. And anyway - even if you favour a big grid (whether hexes or otherwise)- is it not possible to map it to the real world grid more accurately (the discrepancies are easy to see in The Plodder's excellent tour, for example) or just to disguise the terrain so it looks like a real map instead of a hex-based board game ported to computer (after all, that's what you say Command Ops does - disguises the underlying grid - and Command Ops maps almost exactly to google earth and looks 'real')? I'm not sure you should bother replying to these issues, to be honest, though, as I think most people - despite the emerging poll results - are actually happy playing a hex based game that looks like the old board games used to look (well - a lot more sophisticated, in fact...). So it's probably just my personal bug-bear. Like I said, the game plays great - so maybe just ignore me!

Peter

I don't think you understand the difference between graphics that aren't as pretty as people would like and terrain accuracy. I took screen shots from Google Earth and corresponding maps from Google Maps, then imported those into HexDraw. What you are playing on in the game are actual terrain maps.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Jamm]

I wasn't going to reply as I may be biased, but I believe you can reach far beyond your original base and blow more people away
with an upgraded look.
' Sex sells ' as the saying goes.

[rwenstrup]

Scenarios based upon battles that took place in popular novels. AARs that describe these battles and tie back to battles in the books and the key deployments and decisions that won or lost the battle. Compare in game AAR decisions to what happened in the book...

[CapnDarwin]

Let me hit a few of the posts here.

1. A sale with the old FPG. Not likely since FPG is discontinued. Would take some digging to see if a download only could be done. I wouldn't bank on this one.

2. More modding support. That's called Mod Guide 4. It is slowly being worked when I can slice time to it with all the 2.04 stuff and pre-2.1 stuff going on. Not sure what else we can do at the moment beyond getting that document done.

3. Central file location. We are after 2.04 goes live going to look again at a website/file hosting setup and see what cost/time/effort it is to do. No question we would like to have this so we could centralize mods and updates and also have an OTS web site with info similar to what we have on Facebook.

4. Pretty maps. Understood issue with many posts in other places devoted to it. We do plan on testing a better map scanning routine that if it works would allow us to make better tile art for the Hexdraw system (read as getting an artist to make a pot load of tiles and overlays for us). That should split the uprights between functional and pretty without investing in an entire new map system. Which would be on our 2.2 list.

5. Updates. Some of them take time. Sudden Death is fixed/updated/enhanced in 2.04 an should have what everyone wants. It was not in other patches, because other bugs were definitely higher priority and effecting game play. You'll have the new system soon.

6. Steam. Probably a hard sell with Matrix with our "style" of wargame and non-3d super-graphics. Having a great game engine and awesome AI sadly is not a selling point in todays eye-candy centric gaming arena.

7. Marketing. The best thing we have going is you guys talking us up on other sites and with friends and our hitting website and Facebook and a few Conventions. Not sure what else we can do other then what we have been doing by refining the game and adding more content and being present on the forums here and elsewhere.

Thanks for the great comments and suggestion. You guys rock! [&o]

[DoubleDeuce]

RE > 4. Pretty maps: I think a little tweaking of the tiles is all that is needed. The hexes give the game a boardgame feel even though its a PC game. Arguably, 3 of the best PC wargames ever created use crudely presented terrain (TOAW, Steel Panthers and the Campaign Series). If the terrain can be made to blend in across the hexsides and not be a single color, see Jamm's RS-9 maps, I think thats all that is needed. Hopefully a way can be found to do that withhout requiring too much artistic talent and time.

[harry_vdk]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

Think of this one a simple market survey on how we can reach more wargamers and improve our base number of customers. Pretty light thinking for a Sunday afternoon. [;)]

Comments welcome as usual.

- Having a demo like the GrogHeads version.

Maybe a wild idea: Team playing like Dota2.
- The AI or real player have the command, and 3-5 player have a company.

[Phoenix100]

I don't think you understand the difference between graphics that aren't as pretty as people would like and terrain accuracy. I took screen shots from Google Earth and corresponding maps from Google Maps, then imported those into HexDraw. What you are playing on in the game are actual terrain maps.

Well, I do understand that difference, of course, MR. The maps are neither as 'pretty' nor as accurate as I would like. As I said in the original post it's easy enough to see where the maps depart from accuracy using the google earth overlays. If you in fact used google earth to make the maps then it follows that the squeezing them into a hex grid resulted in inaccuracy. As someone said above, it's a serious game, so make it look serious, and for me that could mostly be achieved by getting rid of the hexes (or the appearance of hexes), as has also been said above. I look forward to the changes Capn Darwin mentions in this respect, and meanwhile I agree that The PLodder's and William's maps are a huge improvement. The PLodders are easy to read in terms of terrain, but they retain the hex base and angularity - William's are harder to read, but look more natural - the hexes are much less apparent.

For me, realism in the map would be a pretty stark thing, actually. 1. The map would match up in terms of rivers, roads, towns, elevations etc with the real world maps I can easily access (google etc), 2. the map would only contain graphics that were functional, at the scale we use. So no need to colour in open or field hexes with any kind of graphic at all - just leave it blank - if those little field pictures or building thingies don't actually make any change to the cover or concealment in the game - just leave those spaces blank and when I roll over I can see from the writing that they're clear or field or whatever. Forests make a difference to concealment I assume, so we need to know where they are, but not with little tree pictures - just a block of forest colour that doesn't interfere, as much as possible, with the elevation info. 3. No hexes. I know they're there, beneath, but I don't need to see them.

Perhaps, absurdly, to some extent I want to be able to imagine I'm actually commanding these forces and fighting WW3, and so I want the map I plan on to look something like the map a military planner might use. Normally, the RL maps I've seen that are used in military planning at this scale (operational) are pretty blank. After all, it's not as if I can actually position my little unit of 2 tanks behind a wall or anything. All I do is say to them - 'go to that 500 by 500 area and set yourself up using the cover available and Hold' or whatever. To do that I only need to know roughly what is in that 500 by 500 area, so I know, for example, that I'm not sending them into a 200 metre depression with no LOS (elevation) or open space with no cover etc. The present game maps do achieve this, but the style chosen makes them look like game board maps, and I would just like that to be different. But given the game is very playable, and given that THE most important thing for me is that there is some kind of AI that functions (and there is!) then it's not super-important. Thanks are due to you for actually putting the time into a proper AI, which so rarely happens these days.