How different from Quadriga?

[76mm]

I played Quadriga quite a bit when it came out, enjoyed it quite a bit, although it had a few faults. How will this game be different? Is this the Quadriga II that was mentioned long ago? Is Turnopia behind it?

I see that there is some kind of 3D view, although it seems odd that the view is from behind the chariot, rather than the charioteer's perspective. I would find the latter very interesting, the former, not so much.

Looking forward to learning more about this game!

[-pag-]

see that there is some kind of 3D view, although it seems odd that the view is from behind the chariot, rather than the charioteer's perspective. I would find the latter very interesting, the former, not so much.

+1.
I always prefer a “First-Person” view in 3D games for max immersion. The ability to switch from 1st to a 3rd person view would be perfect. Better yet would “Trackir “capability that would allow the player to look around simply by moving his/her head. TrackiR works extremely well and is used extensively in 3d Flight and racing simulations. This game has a lot potential and could broaden its audience.

[manickennel]

We're still playing around with exactly what will be possible within the races, so I can't give a definitive list of the differences between the two games. AA:C will be very familiar to Quadriga fans. Obviously we have the 3D mode, although you can still race top down too. Core gameplay loops should be very familiar, although we have tried hard to enhance both the racing and the management sides of the game. We aim for more variety within our tracks, whilst keeping things reasonably accurate. There will be a multiplayer mode which (iirc!) Quadriga did not have.

Turnopia are not involved, unfortunately schedules and availability did not align, but we hope to work with them again in the future.

[76mm]

OK, thanks for the feedback. I liked Quadriga a lot, but it suffered from two significant problems arising from game design, rather than graphics or technical issues:
1) finishing no-hope races becomes kind of tedious, but you can't auto-finish, because if you do the game cheated by making your main opponent the winner, regardless of where they were in the race; and
2) I forget what it exactly it took to win an epic campaign, but it took hundreds and hundreds of races at the end, mainly because it was only individual wins that counted, rather than team wins. If your lead charioteer wasn't racing at the final stage, the race was pointless.

[eddieballgame]

Multiplayer is the 'big one' for me. Heck, if they had released a Qvadriga II (or dlc) with mulitplayer...that would have sufficed for me.

[canuckgamer]

The biggest difference for me is that there is multiplayer and the system is WEGO. My friends and I have been playing the Combat Mission series for many years and it uses WEGO. In our opinion, Combat Mission is the gold standard for tactical level wargames.

[Teppic]

One thing is always missed in Q is that you could not push another chariot to a side
and that it is very rigid with the lines:
A chriot is like a single rigit pixel. A track line is also one pixel wide.
A simple idea could have been that a chariot would not be like a single "pixel" but more like
2 or 3 "pixels" whereas one track is somewhat between 3-4 pixels wide depending on the place on the map.
Like this 2 chariots would be able to use 3 tracks and block the main field behind them and give them less/no
possiblity to overtake them.
A side push into anther chariot did not turn out to move the pushed chariot directly which would be the logic
response (also by the horses); only indirectly the chariot would move
activly out of the attack rage or stay activly in the lane to suffer a possible push attack.