eviator

Sounds like easy is too hard for new players. Or perhaps the gap is too wide between beginner and easy. A while back there were folks saying "normal" should be a challenge for average players, and most found it too hard. These days there are posts saying normal is too easy for average players. I think at some point they are just going to have to set the difficulty levels and let the users figure out how to push their skills to progress up the difficulty chain.

I wonder if the data shows a 10-20% FPS drop going from DX11 to DX12 for a GTX 770 like it does on my system. Sticking with DX11 for now. Benchmark aside, the game runs smooth enough to enjoy, so no complaint there.

At 2:25 on you touched on my major complaint about the current max zoom level. As a strategy game that emphasizes terrain with regard to unit/building mechanics, pathing, and region separation, the current zoom level makes it difficult to develop that strategy. Getting the big picture of the terrain is pretty darn important to the gameplay, yet you cripple our ability to get that big picture. I often find myself lost in your maps. Your maps lack distinguishable features (major lakes,

Hello devs, please implement a difficulty level between Normal and Challenging. Normal is easy and Challenging too hard (for me). I know I can just change the DefaultPlayerAI.xml, but I think an in-between step is appropriate for the base game: <Difficulty Name="Intermediate" MetalExtractionMultiplier="1.1f" RadioactivesExtractionMultiplier="1.1f" BuildTimeMultiplier="1.0f" ResearchMultiplier="1.0f" LogisticsMultiplier="1.25f"&n

Just barely made it by a fraction of a second. 0.94a

Supposedly Frogboy says it is easy to punish your opponent's early 2-point rush if you build a factory first and rush your T1s to the enemy. I'm skeptical so I'd like to see that in action.

Engineer group orders is a good idea. Can we reduce the diminishing returns on assists though? I'm not asking to eliminate them entirely. If diminishing returns is 50% productivity for each additional engineer, the most you can get is double (1+sum (n=1 to n=Inf, 0.5 ^n) = 2. I think a better number is 75%. At most you can get 4 times the build rate (1+sum (n=1 to n=Inf, 0.75^n) = 4. But at a more reasonable number, say 5 engineers, your build rate is 3.05. 3 engineers is 2.3. I t

If far zoom out is your thing, wait to buy this game until after release and some let's plays. So far zoom is better than Starcraft but nothing near SupCom.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="5" id="3625541"] In MP, I've won a lot of games due to the player trying to fast expand. Brian (our AI developer) is working on some rather nasty counter-strategies as well. Many new players in Company of Heroes would do the same thing and learned the hard way that this is easily countered. [/quote] I haven't played MP at all (not my thing). Does this mean most folks in MP play terrain exposed? I'd love to see the

Agree. When they solicit ideas for improvement after release I'd like this to be one of them.

Ban hammer on #5 for talking politics.

The Tutorial looks good, I would imagine pretty helpful to new folks. I prefer the new Turinium UI. The control group change was a good one. After the tutorial I started a couple skirmishes and didn't have a starting engineer. Apparently the AI has no idea what to do and has built literally nothing.

Okay I misunderstood. Thanks for the clarification.

[quote who="Ticktoc" reply="18" id="3623781"] Perhaps I have misunderstood what you have written but from what I understand that is working as intended. Holding Shift + middle mouse button allows for full panning and tilting. Just middle mouse button you just get the panning. [/quote] So is ASADDF suggesting that seeing the full map using the tilting functionality is an adequate replacement for being able to zoom out to a top-level view? Because "zoom all the way up" i

[quote who="ASADDF" reply="12" id="3623687"] with Shift you can zoom all the way up [/quote] This does not work for me. It would be nice if it did, but it doesn't.

Happens in any army regardless of composition. Lose the lead unit, the remaining units get orphaned. I'm 99% sure Frogboy specifically mentioned this bug somewhere, which would mean it is on their radar. Edit: well there ya go, straight from the horse's mouth.

So far so good. Main screen looks cool. DX12 still performing worse than DX11 with my nVidia GTX 770 4GB.

Most of the criticisms I see of Ashes and GalCiv III with regard to prior titles is that those prior titles have key features that are missing from the more modern games. I bought SupCom:FA on a steam sale a few months back, but I haven't played it for the very reasons you said (I did play it way back when). I wanted to experience its full zoom-out, which isn't present in Ashes. When you zoom out to max you get a very good idea of terrain features and can strategize in context, such a

First, as I did with prior versions of the game, I did some intense tests to see if I could get armies with a lot of units to fly over cliffs and get into unreachable areas. I could not do it. The lead units did a good job of heading off in the right direction, and the trailing units didn't go too far backward to get in line. The army formation code seems VERY MUCH improved, so well done. Second, now when you right click a region node that you own, you get a green move line ins

These suggestions all have a nice logic to them, I think. I wish the devs had time to really do something about this before release, but most likely they don't. Plus I think they have bigger fish to fry (army leader selection, units cancelling orders, too restrictive static leash, more efficient army organization). I'm also not sure they want to do something about this. It's possible that the current system is exactly what they want. Some of these ideas have been brought up in pri

Main menu music is awesome yet again. Game runs smooth. The game seems more colorful. Pause, delete, and pre-built queueing helps gameplay immensely. Start location selection rocks. Very solid improvements, and I haven't even touched multiplayer.

I love the question, but my answer doesn't matter. Reinforcements is one feature I'd like to see heavily improved and utilized. In fact, some day I want it to be the primary and preferred way to queue units, with army templates, auto-reinforcement, factory assignments, and even complex waypoints. Not expecting the system to get any attention by release or even soon after, however.

Custom maps and scripts is cool. Both already exist, but I'm guessing many don't know that. I'd love to eventually see some hooks and callbacks added for a mod API to do some really custom stuff, like precisely control AI behavior and alter gameplay rules on the fly. When you are ready for some ideas, I'll be right there along with many others to give you some ideas. But for now the simplistic definition of modding you gave is a good start.

I don't think most people have a problem with the mechanic. But 50% is a little much.

I was hoping the mockup would actually be for the strategic map, which the devs are going with, instead of extreme zoom, which they are not. But I do appreciate that you spent lots of time on this. My concern with your idea is that colors for different players may clash. Your mockup has various shades of blue to purple representing units on the same team, but what if another player's color is purple? That could be confusing. It's the main reason I think the whole color heat map idea i