I am quite pesimistic about this game...

[Rudankort]

Im in deep confuse. Multiplayer or not Multiplayer ?

What's so confusing? In the above quote, Iain discusses human vs. human campaigns specifically, and indicates some of their problems. There are many other MP modes which do not have such problems. Of course, Multiplayer in general will be part of the sequel. We have never even considered to limit this part in any way, compared to Panzer Corps 1.

[proline]

There is a LOT you can do to improve the visuals of the existing game without having to rewrite it entirely. Higher resolution sprites (maybe even vector), better contrast between units and terrain, support for higher resolution iPads, etc. It is highly likely that the money and development time you are using on 3D could have gone a long way to improve the existing game. Likely you could have done all of the above and had money leftover to make a better AI. Remember, so far PzC 2 is about delivering LESS to the player. Less iPad support, less content (because existing content won't work), less compatibility and less battery life (because of the strain of 3D on older PCs). Name one feature this game will have that PzC enthusiasts would care about? Just one? Please?

We are working on a proper sequel to the game, so naturally we plan to improve and expand all important aspects, including gameplay, balance, usability, replayability, AI, multiplayer and more. Weather we'll succeed or not remains to be seen, but at this point it's too early to claim the game is a step back in every sense imaginable. You simply don't have enough information to draw such conclusion.

No, I don't know everything about this game. But trumpeting "Its 3D!" as it's one and only announced feature says more about the approach to this game than a thousand feature lists or screen shots ever could. Strategy games are about strategy. That's where the fun is. If your focus is on technology, rather than gameplay it won't end well. If your focus was gameplay, it stands to reason you'd feature that prominently in your messaging.

I'm not trying to be mean or belittle your work. Quite the opposite, I love PzC and I am so glad you made it, and that you kept it true to the original. I would hate to see you fail, not just because you deserve to succeed for all the hard work you do but also because that would be a ten year setback for this genre similar to when SSI failed. Remember that you are a small, resource limited outfit- you lack the money for a Mac version and you can't add iPad Pro support. So you can understand my skepticism that you have the money to spend on a bunch of 3D stuff without it hurting the game elsewhere. Blizzard has more money than you can dream of, so making Starcraft 2 3D didn't bankrupt them. However, players seldom move the camera or use any of the 3D stuff, many people still stick to SC1, and the SC2 community never got as strong as the SC1 community did in its time. Strategy games rely on a god's eye view- 3D offers nothing to them yet has a huge effect on development budget and time.

[Rudankort]

proline

I do appreciate it that you are not indifferent to this gameplay formula and its future, and understand your concerns. Some quick comments.

- For me being true to the original is not about technology. Technology is just a tool. Note that Panzer General was a very progressive game for its time. PG1 used crisp, crystal-clear SVGA graphics before many other games. PG2 used excellent hand-painted maps, which still look great 20 years later. If you look at PG3, its approach to visuals remained true to the series, despite the change in technology. Note its light, low-contrast maps with units clearly standing out from them, and compare it to so many other games, where map and units are one big mess. Personally, I don't believe PG3 was a failure because of graphics.

- Flashback Games is of course a very small business, but I'm not sure why you think we cannot make a game in 3D when many other studios working with Slitherine do just that. The problems associated with 3D are exaggerated to a large extent. Many technical difficulties are handled by the engine these days. Units in both Panzer Corps and Armageddon were made in 3D and rendered, so using them directly in a 3D environment is no problem. Map art in Armageddon took more than a year of full time work to produce! Doing terrain in 3D is not THAT bad.

- Regarding porting games to other platforms, alas it's not only a question of money. We also need to consider weather we'll ever return the investment. Having said that, Panzer Corps for Mac is currently in beta. I'll check out iPad Pro. We should be in a better position with Panzer Corps 2, because it is developed cross-platform from the ground up. Panzer Corps 1 was very different in this regard. In its case, "porting" meant "rewriting from scratch". Porting PzC to iPad quite literally took a year of work.

- To be fair, in the text of initial announcement 3D was just one small paragraph. Read it again and see for yourself what we are saying about gameplay, innovation, staying true to traditions etc. Would you be relieved if we added even more blah-blah along these lines, e. g. said that the AI would be much smarter? I don't remember any single game which said in marketing materials that its AI was terrible. It's always great, smart and unlike anything before. Which of course does not help to actually deliver it. Or take a look at the trailer. Not a single mention of 3D, we did not even put UE4 logo anywhere. I perfectly understand why the introduction of 3D in the series has sparkled so much argument, but I don't believe it's because we are "trumpeting" it more than necessary.

[Musketeer]

Well you could say (and do something like this instead 3D): "Every unit will have distinctive AI! For example recon units has highest chance do decode to retreat. here will be global AI setting which will be very important - AI will learn from moves of person and adapt. For example, if AI sees that player spend 50 % prestige on tanks, he buys accordingly different!"

[Rudankort]

I prefer not to promise things which I'm not sure I can deliver. We will need to wait and see how the AI shapes and what strong points it will get. Once we know for sure, I'll by all means share this info with the community.

[13obo]

Well you could say (and do something like this instead 3D): "Every unit will have distinctive AI! For example recon units has highest chance do decode to retreat. here will be global AI setting which will be very important - AI will learn from moves of person and adapt. For example, if AI sees that player spend 50 % prestige on tanks, he buys accordingly different!"

Really? And how will adding one sentence improve on the game exactly?

Isn't it enough already that the developers have spent so much time to reassure us, the hardcore fan base, that the game will NOT revolve around 3D and look ugly like PG predecessors? We are living in 2017 after all, not in 1997-2000 when PG2 and 3 came out.

You've made your point and so have developers. The game will be developed in 3D.

Stop arguing for the sake of not 'losing the argument'.

[nikivdd]

The game must progress and 3D is a logical step. I want Panzer Corps 2 to be visually more appealing but remains true to the gameplay of the first installment. I don't give a frack about supply, morale or so called tech trees. It should remain a strategic game in which troops gain experience, can get upgrades, get bonus traits and fighting against a daring AI opponent. The thrill of one more turn should be upheld.

[proline]

To be fair, in the text of initial announcement 3D was just one small paragraph. Read it again and see for yourself what we are saying about gameplay, innovation, staying true to traditions etc. Would you be relieved if we added even more blah-blah along these lines, e. g. said that the AI would be much smarter?

Actually I would be relieved if the 3D business was balanced out by any real mention of features that would make the game fun. But I don't mean "even more blah, blah". The info you have provided about 3D is very specific, right down to the engine you are using. Any information about gameplay, on the other hand, is indeed "blah blah" at this point. Disclosing one single good idea for gameplay would mean so much to people. If your communication is 3D first, rest of the game later, then can you appreciate that we might wonder if your development approach might also be 3D first, everything else later? That's the core issue here.

[Rudankort]

In truth, we are not disclosing any details at this point, and this includes both gameplay and graphics (we have not shown any art at all yet). On one hand, it is because at this stage most things can still change. And yes, any feedback you guys are giving us on this forum can affect our decisions to a large degree. On the other hand, experience clearly shows that most people do not care about low level details. In Armageddon we completely redesigned game rules, implemented a brand new 2D engine, added much richer storyline and made lots of other changes, but for 99% of players out there it was still a "Panzer Corps reskin".

From my side I tried my best to communicate what was going on (e. g. here and here). If some people are still not happy, all I can say is, wait for future announcements.

[13obo]

Rudankort, can you disclose how many people work on the actual development of the game? Art, design, text, coding, etc.? I am just curious as to what the scope of PzC2 is based on other games I've played.

[IainMcNeil]

That's a tricky question to answer as different people are needed at different points in the project.

As well as Alex's core team of programmers and designers there are up to 10 3D artists working on models for units, 2 all round artists working on UI/terrain and overall look. There are sound designers for sound effects and composers for music. There may be actors involved if there is voice over. There are sound engineers to post produce any audio. There are multiple scenario designers but they're not involved yet as its too soon. There is a producer and executive producer helping to provide feedback and help steer the design and manage beta testing and various other roles. The marketing team also play the game and give feedback and the marketing director helps with high level decisions. There is a 3 man production team who help to create builds and distribute them via our store and steam. There is a web development team top provide the online side for multiplayer and any other online features that may be required. At an estimate ~50 people will be involved but obviously not all full time. Making games is a complicated business! You'll be able to see the full list in the credits when the game is complete.

[13obo]

That's quite a few! Thank you.

The full release of Battle Brothers, one of my favourite tactical turn-based games, is coming soon and they only had 1 coder, 1 artist, and 1 writer throughout development (music was done by third party).

I assumed this may be a similar-sized project, but I am even more optimistic now that I know so many people are involved!

[Musketeer]

If there was 10 working on Skynet AI and 1 on 3D I would surely buy it...

[BlackeyeVuk]

Alrght. I'll bite. Seems like devs are reading stuff here.

Well. I'd rather have questions on what tools you have. See bringing game to next level usually should take new concepts, improving experience, as well as visually.

First some questions, will you stick to the same concept like in panzer-corps? Meaning, having drawn 2D maps with rendered sprites over? Or will you utilise new engine for more detailed(possibly changeable) environment (by means of destruction, or scenery) , or perhaps will you use engine just so you can create new models easily.It's understandable if you avoid this question because it may sound ungrateful. Part of using good tools is having ability for faster implementation of new stuff as well having modular sections of said game. And you keep production level inside your company because of already established organisation on what and who shall do/create/code etc. Also using good engine just gives you more option for UI/Modulation/Optimisation technical stuff etc.

That said, I have full trust in your abilities to style the game in a way that will not alienate playerbase.

However, in that new experience , we saw a glimpse of it in 40K game, like different weapons on same vehicle etc.
So question on this one (and perhaps its more question/giving ideas), Im certain you will implement something like that in Pnz-2, but im interest to what extent that gameplay will be.
Will we be able to customise certain vehicles with new stuff like, adding machine gun atop of a turret gun of a tank. But need having certain rank of crew(vehicle)/resources etc to upgrade it, adding more soft attack in the process, but giving some tradeoff like less armor because ya know , dude on top turret exposed etc. Or maybe only cosmetically? Or something in between , more, less?
------
There is a pletera of ideas for you on said gameplay improvements that may improve longevity and giving that individuality differentiation between playthroughs , and one of them are, like RPG elements of loot. Naturally in this game that can be seen through nation/enemy factories(for example choosing certain path yielding that particular conquered nation war assets(tanks/planes/ships/various addons for units/tech) that said on global scale.)
On a battlescale, is certainly complexier?, since you will need to add stuff like each unit having slots for various stuff, like schürzen etc.

And again that talk on longevity. AI. Ai in original Pnz is nonexistent , and very linear. But perhaps Im harsh there. Very nature of game simply dictates that certain units must keep in place , else would brake immersion inside tactical battlefield if units would go every which way. So an Idea on that end and keeping AI simple would be perhaps, AI that has preset units on a map, but also having certain amount of replaceable units.
I know we have similar thing already in PnZ and it didn't work for players but hear me out , the problem with that it feels like waves of enemies instead AI having reaction to us.
My idea is, maybe still keeping that 10 number per unit, but also having 10 number overall on said division(doesn't need to be 10 per DIV ofc).
See example, we have a unit with 10 HP , that unit is also a part of division which has 10 units, rest of those are off the map. Rules apply for both AI and the player.
Once unit is damaged(or AI spotted enemy after players turn) for example, AI reacts in by sending part of that attacked unit division, to keep frontline stable, not only that, it sends necessary numberS of units on that particular place to defeat units that are in AI FOW. Maybe it sounds complicated thing to create , but keeps immersion and gives player an illusion of AI actually responding smart. Part of that crafty illusion would be given information to the player.
Example, player seeing unit division number,and seeing similar unit(or different) same division number as backup.
And it gives us more precise means about in which state our units are. (Losing one unit of said division will bring number to 9, so we can "repair/replenish", or having 3 units damaged in said skirmish with remained HP of 4,8,9, so having DIV streight of 100(10)-9=91(9.1) Etc. But losing ability to replenish inside the battle, yet ofc limiting player deployment of units by rank/weather/resources/scenario/other ruleset perhaps, and having damaged units certain "time(turns)" to fix in next battle. )
I donno I like that simple idea, and gives us more option on AI side , for perhaps different scenarios and rules. YET, it should not clusterfuck map with units because player will need to deal with those reactionary force first. I hope you understand idea. Pnz is great, but having need to rush toward a goal of scenario is counterproductive on gameplay after certain time. So we both players and you had to compensate with AI having OP numbers. With this, we could at least manipulate player view.


Sorry for long post, my English is not native, and I'll post more when I have time.

[KeldorKatarn]

Talking to one of my friends, he actually had this to say:



There's definitely going to be no pleasing everyone on this, some people want the polar opposite of others. lol

Honestly those comments are somewhat... sorry... retarded. Why on earth some people think 2D graphics are backwards and 3D is modern I'll never know. You can make a 2D game look absolutely stunning and 3D game look like it was made in the 90s. it's like saying first person shooters are modern and puzzle games are old. That's just nonsense. Also in general 2D graphics hold up a lot better. Look at the orginal Panzer General. You can easily still play that. It has resolution issues but the game graphics themselves are perfectly fine aside ffrom maybe the size of everything which is just a resolution issue. But Panzer General IIID looks absolutely horrible in comparison. These days 2D doesn'T mean pixelated sprites from 8bit times. It means fully 32bit colored sprites that can even have normal information to run lighting and shaders on them.

So if anybody tells me a game looks old just because it is 2D that person has completely disqualified themselves as a discussion partner since they have demonstrated that they have absolutely no clue what they are talking about and I bet a million bucks I could show people like that 2D and 3D game and they would think they are the other way around. They have no clue how rendering even works or how modern games use graphics. As soon as they don't see a call of duty shooter fps camera perspective they think the game is crap. That is not the type of person ANY game developer should target, ever. That has never lead anywhere in the industry but desaster.

[Rudankort]

I think, what the guy on the screenshot said was that he did not like the look of Panzer Corps 1. He never mentioned 2D/3D or anything.

BTW, terrain in Panzer General 3D was 90% 2D. I think, only hills were 3D, and all the rest was painted in textures. And many of those textures were pretty good too. For example, the rivers look very appealing there, the marshes are good, the forests are OK etc. The problem with PG3 terrain art is exactly resolution. It's so low-res and blurry, it did not look good even back in 1999. However, if they made PG3 in 2017 with much higher resolution textures (without changing anything else), I'm sure it would hold up very well.

[KeldorKatarn]

I think, what the guy on the screenshot said was that he did not like the look of Panzer Corps 1. He never mentioned 2D/3D or anything.

BTW, terrain in Panzer General 3D was 90% 2D. I think, only hills were 3D, and all the rest was painted in textures. And many of those textures were pretty good too. For example, the rivers look very appealing there, the marshes are good, the forests are OK etc. The problem with PG3 terrain art is exactly resolution. It's so low-res and blurry, it did not look good even back in 1999. However, if they made PG3 in 2017 with much higher resolution textures (without changing anything else), I'm sure it would hold up very well.

I kind of disagree on that one. I hated the UI, the terrain might have been blurry but it was also very empty and boring somehow. The terrain was 3D modeled, it had height differences so mountains actually did have 3D height. There was no detail modeling however that's true (except for towns, those had 3D houses I think.

I didn't actually mind the blurry textures that much. What I hated about that game was A the painfully unnecessary and annoying animations, B the fact that the units looked completely missplaced on the terrain. They were big the map was small. That's exactly the thing why I don't like 3D in games like this, not even in total war (the strategic map, not the battles obviously). Putting an animated unit on a operational level map looks off. it doesn't fit. The unit is on a totally different scale than the rest of the thing. It literally looks like chess pieces on a board. If the board looked like a board or in this case a war map that would be fine. but the 3D maps in these kinds of games usually try to look realistic like a REAL terrain. And that just doesn't work. I cannot have REAL terrain and then abstracted units playing around on them. It needs to be either abstracted or realistic. And if realistic then it needs to be tactical level like combat mission or the total war battles. On a strategic/operational level it just doesn't match up. The units look out of place on the map. In 2D that works a lot better since everything looks stylized. Once you move to fully 3D terrain it looks realistic and suddenly the units look fail. And that's not because they're low res or badly modeled, it's because they don't fit the style of the terrain. They look out of place. 3D terrain can be fine I guess but it should try to still be the same abstraction that the units are. It shouldn't try to be photorealistic or some kind of satelize image. That just doesn't work for me. It looks fake because the scale of terrain and units doesn't match up. Giving the units then animations as if they were really individual tanks and planes fighting makes it even worse. I see tactical combat on a strategic level map. It just doesn't fit and looks stupid and out of place and yarring.
That's in general the issue with games like this moving 3D and an issue PzC2 should strive to avoid: The game's individual parts, terrain, UI, units etc look fine but they don't have a common art style, there is no clear art design going on. In PG3D the terrain was modeled but the textures were flat with no further detail but at the same time the units were fully modeled in detail and lit. That looked like putting plastic figures on a low res printed out map. Awful.

The game needs to have an art design that encompasses everything from UI to terrain to units. All needs to look like it comes out of the same design flow. If the units look like they don't belong on the map the game is going to look like ass, no matter how cool the individual parts look separately. The nice thing about Panzer General and Panzer Corps's graphics is that it all fits. It all looks good like it's part of the same game and it works. The map doesn't try to be a satelize image or a detailed modeled terrain. It uses abstractions that have the main objective to easily show the terrain NOT necessarily to look incredibly realistic. That works very well with the unit graphics. On PG3D that didn't work. The terrain looked fine, so did the units for the time. But both didn't match up at all. It looked like pieces of one game put on the map of another and the UI was god awful. Instead of clearly visible hex outlines for movement and attack the game did some half backed green and yellow overlays that looked like crap, were hard to spot and were only used because the devs wanted to hide the hexes as much as possible. The only result was that the player had a hard time to really get a grip on where the hexes were and couldn't plan the battle as nicely as in the older games. Hiding the hexes to a degree is fine. I turn off the outlines in PzC too, at least I turn them not fully visible. But I still need to be able to recognize them.

So my advice for PzC 2 is: Nice terrain is fine but it needs to fit the units. If the units look out of place.. forget it. Also the terrain can be pretty but should NOT be so detailed I cannot easily tell a forest tile from a grass tile. if the transitions are so fluid that they look realistic but I cannot tell where the hex ends anymore it's bad for gameplay and will annoy players. The pretty stuff only works in screenshots and to attract players. If it affects gameplay people will not keep playing the game and be turned off. The terrain types need to be easily spotted. Either make the hexes easy to spot from the start of give us optional hex outlines (that I guarantee most people will turn on). And if this is turned on make SURE I can easily tell my looking at a hex whether it's a forest or not. I do not want to see hexes that are 1/3 covered by the last few trees of a nearby forest so I'm unsure what type of terrain it is, already grassland or still forest. That may look good but it's a nightmare for gameplay.

And I stick to my guns here. I'm open to everything but so far I have not seen a SINGLE 3D wargame that played on the strategic scale that looked good. And no to me Civilization doesn't look good at all. It looks godawful. It uses a very blurry and no-detail-color-gradient base terrain, then puts 3d modeled stuff like fields and buildings on top of that and then right next to that are even more detailed animatied units that are completely off scale. Stylized in 2D that can work. 3D modeled things automatically look more real, touchable. And the human eye immediately starts to compare scales and notices that one scale doesn't fit the one next to it. If that's a building how can the tank be this huge... that's immediately what the brain thinks. And that's a problem. I hate that art style and I stopped playing Civ after the move to 3D. I had made graphics mods for the 2D terrain for Civ 3 and I hated what came after that. I would pay for DLCs that turn everything back into 2D. It just never works for me. The scale differences distract me to a point that I get annoyed and don't want to play the game enymore because my empire looks like crap instead of pretty. I don't like giant settlers trampling on my neat little modeled towns. It just looks stupid. On 2D that effect is not present. it's the 3D perspective camera that turns the scene into something the brain understands as 'real' and starts comparing. That's when it falls apart and that's why I think everything that is NOT on a human scale, like tactical combat in Combat mission or a shooter or rpg should NOT be 3D. The scale issue will always be an issue for the brain and be noticed as something that's 'somehow not right'

[Rudankort]

KeldorKatarn

I think I understand where you are coming from here, but also it's a very delicate matter which has to do with taste more than anything else. Panzer General style game IS basically a chessboard with pieces placed on it. Hence, the difference in scale between units and terrain which existed in every single game of the series, or imitations by other developers, for that matter. You think, it works in 2D but not in 3D. I think, it does work in 3D too. I dunno... if it's not a matter of taste, then what is it? And yes, I don't hate Civilization, although Civ 5 has its share of problems, like visibility of units placed on top of terrain. Civ 6 does this better, but at a cost of more "cartoonish" look which personally I like less.

[KeldorKatarn]

As I already mentioned elsewhere, It's all a matter of art design. Terrain and units need to feel right together. If the units feel like they don't belong on the terrain, like they jumped out of a different game onto the map it'll not work. Can it work in 3D? Sure. After all you could render 3d models with a shading that makes them look exactly like the sprites we have now and those work after all. It's about looks, not tech. All I'm saying is that most games of this genre moving to 3D don't ever get this right. It always looks out of place and there's never a clear art design across everything. That needs to be the focus.

I think the issue is not so much taste but the human brain. If an object looks too real, the brain treats it as a real world object in a real 3D space and the brain immediately starts to compare sizes and scales and all that. That's just what our brain does, you cannot supress that. So if a 3D model on a stylized map starts looking too real, i t won't fit anymore. Things start feeling.. wrong.. if only subconciously. The fix IMO is to either make the object not too realistically lit. After all it's not a tank, it's a stylized tank representing a unit. Keep the lighting subtle the shading a bit more stylized to make it fit the feel of the map better. OR go the other direction and light and shade it super realistic and make the map very flat and make it look that way like small tank models on a chess board. Either works although I personally much prefer the former of the latter. But the middle ground, making the units somewhat realistic and somehow make them look like they drive around on a real map.. that just doesn't work. the scales will look off, the unit will look out of place, it will look silly and distracting and just bad.

[KeldorKatarn]

Just as a further example. The latter... going to the far and and CONCIOUSLY making units feel out of place on the map, hence creating the "chess piece on a flat board" look is something that can totally work. IMO that's why PG2 worked nicely:



It's immediately appartent that the units are not in a real terrain but rather driving around on a flat painted map. That doesn't matter. It's not distracting since the eye can immediately see that the map is not 3D and therefore never tries to compare their scales. Only the units are compared to eachother. I can guarantee you if PG2 had tried to make the towns or trees 3D on that painted map, it would have looked awful.

I think a recreation of the PG2 effect, having a beautiful highly detailed but completely FLAT map that doesn't look 3D at all and put very pretty 3D animated units on top of it will work perfectly fine.

The problem arose in PG3 where the terrain became 3D as well and got shading, lighting and height difference got physically modeled. The units immediately looked out of place. The 3D buildings of towns looked awfully out of place and didn't fit the scale of the units, the art design didn't match, it just looked really awful.

I think if PzC 2 create a perfectly flat map that is not trying to match the units (will never work because of the scale difference IMO) but instead goes for a very pretty painted or prerendered look but DOESN'T do dynamic shading at all and makes the unit throw a flat shadow that further enhances the fact that the map is just a flat board, and then puts good looking 3D shaded units on top of that, just like PG2 did it... I think that'll work nicely. Again it will be the chess look. But if both are created 3D and somehow try to merge... that'll create a huge challenge for the art department to make THAT look right.

Also in general I feel modeling the terrain in 3D is a major mistake because the hexes won't be flat anymore, makes them harder to detect, harder to see what terrain type a hex is, harder to click on a unit or see what is adjacent to a unit ect etc. bad idea. The terrain should be pretty but perfectly flat IMO so every hex has the same undistorted outline. That's WAY better for gameplay and if it's art wise done the way PG2 did it, it can look very nice. It'll have a cool board game look. That will still not be everybody's cup of tea but I feel if PzC tries to create a look that suggest a tactical scale but at the same time have a strategic scale... that just won't work. You can't make a strategy game with tactical combat mission graphics. I feel that fails every time.