I would appreciate an in game explanation of the XP system. Is there a XP counter that I missed?
1 Like
I think that’s good scene because we need to think about priority what we need to take
1 Like
@AllenGies Can we name our tank? I’d like to build an American crew similar to that one T-34-85 “Rudy” crew in Four Tank-Men and a Dog (with or without the dog, but preferably with).
2 Likes
We can name it after our first battle.
2 Likes
That certainly sounds like an exciting bit. I’ll let you know my thoughts when I get to them. French armor is a particular pet topic of mine in terms of WWII armored history.
1 Like
I’d argue the WW2 Italians were far worse. The Austria-Hungarians were fighting Italy, Russia, and a host of Balkan nations, while WW2 Italy picked its own fights and still got annihilated.
3 Likes
More like Italy was the Ottoman Empire of WWII.
1 Like
Nice demo, enjoyed it very much so far! I especially like the attention given to infantry support in the game, not just tank-on-tank duels. Likewise, the infantry supporting the tank too, especially in urban warfare. North Africa (especially Torch and afterwards) doesn’t get much coverage too, and I like the choice of the M3 instead of something heavier - keeps the player more on their toes.
I feel like the stats could do with some adjustment – both in what they do and their importance.
Gunnery seems to be the most important stat so far – which I guess makes sense, since the majority of tank duels, I understand, are won by the one who gets the first hit off first. Unless one plans to do no fighting, it seems absolutely necessary to prioritise gunnery when possible. Observation seems important too, though as mentioned before it doesn’t show up in the stats screen.
Mechanics hasn’t currently come up in great use in my run, but I expect it’ll pay out in the long run with regards to the tank’s reliability? Driving likewise isn’t that useful if you manage to get off a kill before the enemy can respond – perhaps it could also influence the amount of fuel consumed (I do know it affects the PC’s tank’s “dodging”, but I’ve never had to dodge)?
Granted, all of this might be because of my playstyle – conservative “shoot and scoot” with no firing on the move, and my PC spent the entire time unbuttoned (which I also understand was the more popular option historically too).
With the XP mechanics, I think it might be useful if there were certain regular milestones where one could spend XP, like the end of every day or every day with action. In my run I saved up XP, but there turned out to be only one use in the game thus far. Some measure of how much XP a character has accumulated might also be handy.
I enjoy the ability to upgrade the tank with looted components, though again with the gunnery it seems like the gyrostabilizer is the most useful component (if it comes into play). If Mechanics turns out to be an under-utilised stat, perhaps it might be worth considering using the skill to provide minor upgrades (e.g. a +1 to driving due to a better tuned engine, greater ammo capacity due to changing up the turret interior etc)?
Perhaps I’ve been lucky to not get my PC hit, but perhaps there could be disadvantages to having the PC’s head out of the cupola (if there aren’t already and I’ve just missed them)? The most obvious one I can think of is when the R-35 narrowly misses the player’s tank, and the round impacts a building, which would probably shower the PC with fragments. Also, having snipers I suppose.
I had a thought that Observation could also be used to ID enemy targets, not just spot them, as historically there was a bit of misidentification and kill inflation (that’s a Tiger; no, it’s a Panzer IV). Additionally, it would help the PC ID whether a target remained a threat or not (to preserve ammo). But all that might just be over-complex.
As for the writing itself, so far everything comes across clearly, but I feel it could do with a bit more “flavour”. Additionally, sometimes the tank’s range isn’t entirely clear, so sometimes I end up further or closer than intended; it would be convenient (though I imagine a lot of work), if each individual range had a different descriptor in the text.
I don’t suppose you’ve considered having scenes where the PC dismounts from the tank to scout ahead (especially when not in urban combat and in more feature-heavy terrain)? It might mix it up a bit from always being in your tank during combat. In general, I think one potential future concern is actions becoming a bit too similar, so a general variety of combat situations might be worth it. We’ve already seen an attack on a fortified position and urban combat, so perhaps something that would prioritise driving (like a race to secure a bridge or airfield), or something that would require use of mechanics (like a protracted engagement)?
Other than all that, looks good! Best of luck with future development.
2 Likes
Notes during my playthrough:
Thank you for the ‘pyre for four’, I was having a bit of a cold sweat about learning that I’m in a Stuart (what can I say, T34 <3). Love that I get that option.
For the battle, it was hard to get a situational awareness at first. Of course I’m used to maps, but it might be nice to have one of the options (on the shoot the tower, head for the dunes etc choice) be something like ‘recall the battlefield’ or something of the sort. Just to get a brief description again how things are in relationship to each other. I probably ended up annoying the Colonel a lot by by not really understanding the layout, especially with the choices looping back similar text so you’re not sure if your choice registered.
When you do the option technical scene, it would be nice with a callback to the things you just looted from the other tank. Feels a bit odd to have it pointed out that you just have the bare minimum med kit, when you just looted a full one. Same with the gyro, the first text made me think it would take time to get it installed, but the tank stats made it seem that it was? Still not sure.
Other than that I really liked it, felt smooth, immersive, and tense. But I mean I knew I’d get that from you…
Also, tactically I tended to do the run and gun, sure I don’t hit as well, but standing still in a Stuart makes my blood run cold.
6 Likes
@Thfphen110 - Glad you found the infantry support to be a good interaction. The Stuart was a good tank for that sort of thing in 1942.
Mechanics to reduce fuel usage? Plausible. I’ll make a note of it. Same with jury-rigging certain things for the tank. Not ammo, but changing up the radio from the basic receive-only tank bands affair that tanks generally had. Only an officer’s tank could send signals, at least for that year.
Driving to ‘dodge’ attacks? Also good. Another note.
XP milestones, they’re in the pipe as a dedicated gosub. That’ll make adding special things easier.
Looted components: The gyro-stabilizer is indeed pretty important. It was an expensive piece that required special training to use. Something similar occurs with the telescopic sight.
There should definitely be the occasional health cost to a PC keeping themselves looking out of a cupola. That’s something that was missed. When buttoned up, a tank was generally less effective with everything they did except keeping the commander alive.
The idea of having the PC dismount to scout the terrain or forces ahead is a great idea. Good way to add danger and personality to things. Gotta keep it interesting.
@malinryden - Yeah, the M3 is a brittle tank. Even the later Chaffee couldn’t fix that. That is one reason it was chosen for this piece. Yeah, you’ve got a tank and it’s better than cotton shirt, but you’ve still got to be careful. If this was a piece about commanding a Tiger tank, or even just a Panzer IV, it would be very different. Same with a Russian T-34 which, while an excellent tank, had much stiffer opposition. That would also be an interesting game to write as the east front was a very different war from the desert.
A few callbacks to things that have already been looted? Yep. Good idea. Will have to make it clear that the gyro stabilizer needs time to install in the stat screen. A small thing, but necessary.
Glad you, and everyone, found the time to critique and enjoy this. Let’s hope that my creative energy, split as it currently is, keeps this going. Off to write now. 
7 Likes
I really enjoy the feeling of the game where you have to make a tactical decision and the result so far. Can’t wait for more update.
Also, Lt. Dearborn? Burden of Command?
3 Likes
@Armenrah - Yep. There is a deliberate, and legal, tie-in with that project. That’s one reason for which finding time to write has been so difficult for me. That and trying to figure out a Youtube channel as well. Too many projects, even though there is more time now.
Glad you are enjoying the tactical side of things. What have been your experiences there? Any suggestions for improvements (others have suggested spacial and descriptive changes) are welcome.
3 Likes
Not to stray too far off topic, but by legal tie in do you mean that this game is affiliated with/related to burden of command? Also does working on Burden of Command mean you can’t write for CoG anymore or is it a time issue?
Unrelated to the other questions but game related, is there any chance of a map being included? I understand if not because it would be quite a bit of work to map out the battlefield as it, but I think it would help a lot with the whole “I have no idea where my tank is in relation to other things”
2 Likes
@augustus27 - This game is related to Burden of Command. It’s release date will hopefully be in step with one another. Working for Burden of Command has meant a diversion of my time, but that won’t always be the case.
For maps? That’s a tricky one. You indicated that you were having trouble with the spacial relations of things. Which means my writing isn’t doing what it is supposed to do. One answer to that is, as you noted, a map.
What kind of image for that are you thinking of? Just an initial one to set the stage or something different?
2 Likes
Seems very promising so far, nice work.
1 Like
I have a question what is Burden of Command and how does it tie into this game? I dont need a huge details just the gist of it I’ve looked for it couldn’t find it
1 Like
It is a graphical game that Allen is a writer for:
4 Likes
Thanks i didnt know about it cause im not steam much anymore since it broke so im using my tablet now
1 Like
@AllenGies, a typo here:
Medoza taps your shoulder, drawing you from your logical exercise. Two tanks are parked upon a rise. One of their fire cannons barks a shot at a distant, looming concrete target. Two more push across open ground, giving the infantry cover. Occasionally, those men slump and fall, left behind for whatever medics there may be. A figure in olive drab darts toward your tank. He doesn’t carry a rifle, but instead has a leather holster at his side for a service pistol. An officer for certain.
In the stats screen here,
Um, the stats are in a story based format already, right? That option has to be changed to change to a numeric based fornat.
Edit:
In here,
You are undoubtedly correct. That said, I have the honor to be Louis Bisset, Sergeant of… well, a Sergeant. I formerly commanded a tank," the Frenchman says. His fingers brush his brim in a flat handed, open palmed salute. Almost like he is lifting a visor on a medeival helm. “We fought hard, but my ‘Principale’ was rendered… how do you say ‘panne d’essence?’ Removed of gas? You must know this.”
Should be “medieval”.
1 Like
@NJG - Nice catches there. The ‘Medoza’ typo was actually in multiple places, probably propagated via cut and paste. Couldn’t see your .jpg, but probably figured out what you were indicating with the shift from story to numeric formats. And, of course, my spelling of medieval was a problem. It is a word, like restaurant, that gives me difficulties for some reason. Thanks.
1 Like