Gotanmarf

[Gotanmarf]

Gotanmarf wrote:

“re-playability and portability are above visual effects”.

It is worth to mention here that word ‘portability’ should expands to hardware without graphical accelerator chips, but with sufficient processor, memory and pixels display. Those should be enough for 2d game, with option for switching visual effects on/off. But this is only my opinion.

[Gotanmarf]

Rap wrote:

…
I’m sorry the game won’t run on your laptop, but as harsh as it sounds, we have to set priorities with our limited resources. Having the game run on old laptops with an OS that was released in 2001 and isn’t updated to a current version can not be one of them.

Thanks for reply. Don’t worry. You just have different view on displaying pixels policy, just that. Pixels are just pixels. I’m from old school view – “re-playability and portability are above visual effects”.

[Gotanmarf]

Why not SDL lib (Simple DirectMedia Layer) ?
Extremely portable library and playable even on older hardware.

I don’t see any answer, so I guess that lead programmer chose SFML because He likes object oriented frameworks, even at cost of portability of a project.

[Gotanmarf]

Rap wrote:

We make use of some free libraries, including SFML, PhysicsFS and Awesomium.

Why not SDL lib (Simple DirectMedia Layer) ?
Extremely portable library and playable even on older hardware.

[Gotanmarf]

Rap wrote:

Speaking for the programming side, we use Microsoft Visual C++ as a development tool. We make use of some free libraries, including SFML, PhysicsFS and Awesomium.
Out of curiosity, did you ever get the demo to run on your computer?

Thank You for memory!
I have problem with launching demo because I have old laptop with Windows XP, and with small disk space (I have about 700 MB free space for game), and I think how to do this without installing this service pack 3 (right now I can allow only SP2).
I think that Battle Brothers as a 2d game without advanced visual effects, should run easily on old computers too.
I can launch practically every good 2d game right now on my laptop (for example: Dwarf Fortress, Battle for Wesnoth, Age of Wonders Shadow Magic, Eador Genesis: New Horizons, Armageddon Empires, Stronghold, Tropico, Galactic civilisations 2, Patrician 3, Kohan 2, Alpha Centauri,… ), except those made by Game Maker developing tool.

[Gotanmarf]

Does Service Pack 3 requires previous installation of Service Pack 2?

[Gotanmarf]

Ok, it’s bearable. Now I see why you chose other approaches, which are closer to game theory than to simulation theory.

[Gotanmarf]

You may say that player can cheats by walking aimlessly on map, to exercise stamina, for example. I think that there are methods to prevent this. The game can count variety of actions for specific brother, on single battle. If, for him, there are just repetitions of particular action, then shouldn’t be any improvement, from this single battle, connected with that action.

[Gotanmarf]

… and from that sum of natural improvements (hidden from player’s view) should be made dice throw on levelup. I think this is cool idea.

[Gotanmarf]

Exactly,… there are few really good linear strategies which have big potential to be non-linear sandbox. For example Reunion, Patrician series, or High Seas Trader, and few Asian tactic games from GBA, SNES, and Genesis.

[Gotanmarf]

… and of course patched version of Master of Magic is an example of game made in a good style (random world, replayability, splitting and regrouping units on global map, etc.)

[Gotanmarf]

Thanks for quick reply.
As for splitting group,… my vision of this game is closer to x-com. I think that it is player’s choice if he/she want to split, or regroup his troops. From programmer’s point of view this is easy to implement. Troop with the biggest morale is a natural leader of particular group. Possibility for splitting (or regrouping troops), adds to the game incredible amount of new strategy possibilities: flanking, surrounding, misleading foe, balancing forces, etc. All this in wider picture, on world’s map, as it should be. One battle alone is just summary of one step in wider strategy. It is basic concept in every well-respected strategy. If every group has its own vision range (enhanced by scouts), it even be more essential for realizing, individual approaching for treating enemy. So I’m sad about this, it decrease my enthusiasm for this game at this point.
Everything else, in what you have mentioned, is bearable.

[Gotanmarf]

Rap wrote:

A few good selling open world games (e.g. Skyrim, GTA) made everyone aware that there is a lot of consumer interest in those.

Open world idea is beyond terms such as “good selling”. Sandbox is more like state of mind, or life style, not based on capitalistic commercialism.
We see that capitalistic systems doesn’t work, in real world, on this planet, with such big number of population, so not everyone likes to be associated with just “consumers”. They are more like brothers of idea.

[Gotanmarf]

Rap wrote:

Hello again!

Excuse me, but so many linear games, make so many wishes for sandbox games.

[Gotanmarf]

Rap wrote:

I appreciate your offer to share your code but it won’t be necessary here as we already have our own solution.

Ok, I trust that this will be sufficient for feeling natural land shapes, and natural resources distribution. In general,… inland towns, cities, and villages rises near rich natural resources.

Besides, you want to keep source code closed (I guess).

[Author]

Posts