Does OG need more improvements ?

[LuisGuzman]

Now that the new version is released, it is time to discuss seriously if we need/want more improvements or it is better to enjoy a relaxing time, developing new campaigns only.

Probably most designers here would prefer to stop any new development to have a long time to finish his work in progress with no more changes.
But we have frozen the code several times and in the end new improvements have been asked after a short time, specially since more designers are focused in pre/after WW2 wars.

Thus the point is: Do we want to review the list of wishes to set priorities to work, or it is not worth at this moment to take a rest.

You can vote for 1 or 2 options, but can change your mind at any time.
If you want me to add more options (2 more), just tell me.

[randowe]

Hello Luis

You always ask us, the designer and players what we want to have. That is very kind and everybody who is interested can get involved easily, but this also often leads to heated discussions amongst the designer as we all know
Maybe you can outline what plans you have or what kind of vision do you have for Open General in the years to come?
I can only speak for myself, but i would be very much interested to hear about your future plans for OG

[Ale]

9. cheese doodles ..... as you probably remember

seriously, did not vote for the main reason of unclear (only to me) choices i.e. what gives any of them in reality - even things like better AI, but maybe i'll catch up if read regularly - except for numbers 1 and 5 given above. Interestingly thing i spent some time testing (supply mods) are not interesting choice to others, that's fair. while posted also to "test" new board where i do not plan to talk al ot - it's not bad saying that really a lot was done (again to me) to give enough choices and new life to game, hence thanks mostly doing reworked older camps now and then with new options and it's fun and refreshing. hope you settle nice and those creating totally new content pile up. free, active programmer and much content and options versus title for a price you-know-where is enough said.

[lvjtn]

i was thinking about to share my thoughts. as my ex usually told me: i have the talent to have the least popular opinion and i dare to share it, maybe i should just shut my freaking mouth up...

so my opinion is: the least new features, the better, and definitely not major changes. why? my answer has two aspects:

1. no matter how careful Luis is, and how sure everybody is about the proposed change is optional, not affecting the default behavior, during the past ten years i saw so many examples when core features became broken because of a newly added feature/modification. and let's be honest, it's impossible to test all features everytime a new exe is released, so i see every single new release a potential danger to the backward compatibility: a designer can't be sure his/her old campaigns will work the same with a new exe. and it's a very serious issue for me. maybe the peg system (packing the exe into each mod) would be a solution, though it's not elegant either

2. the game became too complex. and i'm not a rookie, i played hundreds of campaigns, i created hundreds of scenarios, i was an avant-guard fighter for cfg $vars, but now, i barely know what half of the custom settings are inteded to do, what should be the expected behavior. from 2012, opengen was very successful in creating an environment for modelling 4-5 similar but different games. that's great. however, the price is opengen became too complex, and unfortunately (due to the nature of the evolution and compatibility with basic file formats): very inconsistent, something like a less elegant patchwork pillow

so my idea is that we shouldn't contine adding new improvements to this exe, or at least we shouldn't add significant changes like night turns (just think about it, it would mean reworking spotting system and ai too), but this exe should be frozen, tested, and some day releazed as 1.0. and i think it's the time ti think about to start a new og 2.0, with reworked structure, inner limits, etc. similar to the big switch to the new formats in 2011/12

yes, i know, it'd be lots of work, and maybe Luis hasn't the time or enthusiasm to do it, and converting dozens of efiles and hundreds of campaigns, thousands of maps and icons to a potential new format wouldn't be easy (though suite did the miracle with old pg2 format efiles and campaigns), and maybe there is no real need neither among the designers nor the players for a new, og 2.0, personally i'm not eager to switch. finishing the almost ready a.i. 3.0 will give me enough works

sorry for the long post, and it's my completely personal

[Duke Falcon]

No more changes, extensions or addendum for a very while! First everyone let be learn to use all the new stuffs or at least grant time (1-2 years) to have some experience with them either as a designer or a player. I created a few tweaked and freaked e-files but I admit I have no clue how or when to use almost half of the new options. And since most people still make WW2 or pre-era e-files I think everything is included in OG what needed for those - and do not tell me "I need minesweeper slugs with horns to simulate the battle of Kiribashiyama" since OG is not meant for reality but for play and have fun (those whom want reality why start a TB game instead of an RT?!).

So I think OG reached the point where not new options are important but bug-hunt and fixing glitches about the new AIs, new options etc. We got tons of novelty so it's time to stability and tranquility!
So my vote went to this...

[randowe]

Well spoken mate

I fear, we also got a lot of new features in the last 2 years (i can only speak about the time i am here) requested by single people (who may gone for good already), features which nobody else will ever understand or use...

[Gixian]

As someone who is sometimes here and sometimes gone , I still have to learn all the things added in the past two years, so I would say we should stop adding new things (like new unit specials or completely new features like night turns or supply lines) and focus on "consolidating our positions".

I'm not against changing/tweaking some already existing stuff (if it behaves strangely / irrationally in some cases) at all, but as this is often not possible due backward compatibility of existing efiles/campaigns, we should probably not do this either.

So the only thing left to us are the AI tweaks (on the optional AI 3.0) and dreaming about what will we should differently if there ever be OG2 and the chains of backward compatibility will be dropped, both in strange game behavior and obsolete file formats.

[LuisGuzman]

Hello Luis

You always ask us, the designer and players what we want to have. That is very kind and everybody who is interested can get involved easily, but this also often leads to heated discussions amongst the designer as we all know
Maybe you can outline what plans you have or what kind of vision do you have for Open General in the years to come?
I can only speak for myself, but i would be very much interested to hear about your future plans for OG

I'm sorry for not replying before, but I wanted to avoid biasing people. And the results are in the line I had in mind when creating this poll.

And answering your question: as I've said lately, my priority for the close future is to work in the AI 3.0.

I know checking the opinion from players and designers usually leads to hot discussion, but it is not bad as far as we keep polite and avoid personal attacks. I do that also at work, I always prefer to raise discussions related to important questions to allow everybody to explain different points of view, then I decide and explain the reasons for my decision, and in my experience, things work better this way as they avoid further conflict, and usually good ideas are raised.

But Csaba has raised the question of OG2, which has been around sometimes and still is in my mind. Thanks Csaba

Thus, I opened a a new topic to start a discussion about the future, viewtopic.php?f=6&t=168, then I'll decide.

[Puma]

I think that no more changes are required
What the game needs is stability so more people can create campaigns that will not be unplayable before they are even finished because so many changes are changed before anyone knows what the original change did or how it worked
OG2 is not required either, this will split the small amount of designers/players across different camps.

As others have already stated, changes have been implemented for a few very vocal designers that are not even here anymore. No one uses or understands some of these changes.
When designers utilise some of these changes others decide the changes should be changed and then the campaign is broken.

If the AI is altered than all the hard work done by a campaign designer is destroyed because they had spent many hours designing something for the existing AI to be tough to beat.
Few people create campaigns and fewer people update campaigns so what is the point of making changes that will deter existing campaigns from being played
So, no more changes, more documentation to understand what the changes are meant to do, and more campaigns to play

[LuisGuzman]

I fear, we also got a lot of new features in the last 2 years (i can only speak about the time i am here) requested by single people (who may gone for good already), features which nobody else will ever understand or use...

Could you post a list of these features, please ? (in order to try to explain better)

So, no more changes, more documentation to understand what the changes are meant to do, and more campaigns to play

Which are those features that require a better documentation ?

Thanks in advance!

[randowe]

I fear, we also got a lot of new features in the last 2 years (i can only speak about the time i am here) requested by single people (who may gone for good already), features which nobody else will ever understand or use...

Could you post a list of these features, please ? (in order to try to explain better)

pm sent

[REDrake]

You know what OG truly needs? More players...

Preferably, players who are also not e-file makers...

[Duke Falcon]

I myself want only one thing what is more of gui\gfx related not behavior but can live without it: More custom attack animations.
It were asked earlier connected to Antique General but I forgot if it were made or just planned? At least I not remember such an option in Suite.

You know what OG truly needs? More players...
Preferably, players who are also not e-file makers...

I think we need some advertising. Also the many WW2 efiles could hardly compete with Slytherine's Panzercorps as most people goes for better graphic. Today games are sold with superb graphic in huge numbers but they have zero content. Nowadays one may buy a game where you could command your troops to shot out the tank commander's left eye with ultra 16k+ graphic but the whole games grants nothing more. And people buy them.
Perhaps some oldies-fan forums should be targeted to get more players for OG. Sorry but most of us sure 30+ and play mostly for nostalgic since we loved PG1-2 and OG gives us the same taste on later PCs. That is the same reason why I play also OpenXcom aswell and why DosBox is a MUST_HAVE tool on all my laptops I just use.

Or option B: Everyone stop making e-files for a year and play, JUST PLAY!!!
Not have any plan C yet...

[randowe]

You know what OG truly needs? More players...

Preferably, players who are also not e-file makers...

Or option B: Everyone stop making e-files for a year and play, JUST PLAY!!!

But what means to play? What is a player? People can play a game without being a member in a forum. We don't know how many players there are.
And of the active members only very few post play reports lately or play CCs or test other efile makers/designers campaigns...

EDIT Advetising, yes, that would be nice. But nobody is going to do it. There are enough news sites for videogames etc. where one could send some kind of "press release". But nobody answerd the request for the "social media work", who could write something. Can't blame anybody for not answering as i did not answer myself. One needs to have fun do it and the people who have fun with social media feed their own insta stories to get famous

[Duke Falcon]

I am not sure anyone else may have any use of these but I could use the following:

1: Larger flags
Instead of the fixed 21x14 have a greater dimension like 21x21. Positioning the new flags should not be a problem as\if I am right the top left pixels get displayed first and go down. Markers for the flags (VH, SH, EH) works with larger resolutions since a while just the flags not growth up yet. This means only for the normal flags! Small flags are OK the way they work right now. It would also be usefull for those whom work on medieval mods as the larger flags enabling side display on House-level (an House vs House conflicts were pretty frequent).

2: More possibilities for attack animations
Currently it is pretty simple: One animation for ground units, one for air and one for ships. Looks crazy when melee units fire? Looks. Looks strange that all ground units has the same attack from gladius-wielding legionnaires to longbowmen? So a roll-down option about sounds in the Suite where one may able to select from more FIRE_XXXs files could be fancy. Imagine that Tigers and Panthers have fitting fire anims insteads of a chicken T-34's "pew-pew"!

3: Forget it...
I had some crazy ideas about sneaky units like "jets\stealth" but that seemingly not works for ground units. So a recon or spy must be an "air" units to use that but that may cause troubles if combat occurs as such units count as air target and give air attack value to every units could tilt the balance.

[Ale]

It would also be usefull for those whom work on medieval mods

well i have sketches on few camps with small force operations (one I called "300" in mid XIV c, other in mid XV "Đurađ's last guard", "Black Knight" in eraly XV and similar locally themed, if not originally named)) even painted the way i'd like icons to look like.... Deep down it is not fun enough in game (to me) as I owned game for fun of upgrades and enemy variety.

medieval mod is nice work, my "moral support" and hope for interest ) except small tweaks and paper ideas i think i'm out of time for serious mods... just saying btw, nobody asked

[lvjtn]

1: Larger flags

the chance to change the dimensions of gui files is (close to) zero. maybe in og2

one may able to select from more FIRE_XXXs files could be fancy

that can be done more easily, and wouldn't affect existing efiles

I had some crazy ideas about sneaky units like "jets\stealth"

just to be sure: have you realized that stealth special has nothing to do with sneaking? it represents the high altitude planes, which cannot be intercepted by ad/flak/dd, etc. units unless these ground units have also the stealth special

[LuisGuzman]

2: More possibilities for attack animations
Currently it is pretty simple: One animation for ground units, one for air and one for ships. Looks crazy when melee units fire? Looks. Looks strange that all ground units has the same attack from gladius-wielding legionnaires to longbowmen? So a roll-down option about sounds in the Suite where one may able to select from more FIRE_XXXs files could be fancy. Imagine that Tigers and Panthers have fitting fire anims insteads of a chicken T-34's "pew-pew"!

Well, assigning an specific "fire_ID" png-file to every unit in the Efile would be possible, although I think that would be very seldomly used.

[Duke Falcon]

2: More possibilities for attack animations
Currently it is pretty simple: One animation for ground units, one for air and one for ships. Looks crazy when melee units fire? Looks. Looks strange that all ground units has the same attack from gladius-wielding legionnaires to longbowmen? So a roll-down option about sounds in the Suite where one may able to select from more FIRE_XXXs files could be fancy. Imagine that Tigers and Panthers have fitting fire anims insteads of a chicken T-34's "pew-pew"!

Well, assigning an specific "fire_ID" png-file to every unit in the Efile would be possible, although I think that would be very seldomly used.

The possibility is enough. Even I need 2 or 3 such files and ready to create the new sprites for them. But I know most other designers are content with the basic files and that a shard of them have artistic skills to create any new graphics whatsoever. Generally said an e-file may have the common FIRE_XXX.png file while added files may carry the name of FIRE_XXX1, 2 and so on. Codewise this part is harder to make than larger flags but I think it may used more commonly.

the chance to change the dimensions of gui files is (close to) zero. maybe in og2

This is not as hard as it seems since the code reads that a flag must be 21 pixel wide. If the 14 pixel height got modified to a "less or equal to" 21 then it will display 21x15, 21x18 or 21x21 flags without messing any existing e-files gui-parts. I know I said I need this my japanese mod what is my next 2-3 years project but I doubt OG2 will be available within 2-3 years.

just to be sure: have you realized that stealth special has nothing to do with sneaking? it represents the high altitude planes, which cannot be intercepted by ad/flak/dd, etc. units unless these ground units have also the stealth special

Which means it were used very strictly in meaning as the word "stealth" exactly means something able to stalk, sneak without imminent notice by others. Currently no viable options are available to simulate such units (spies) but the air units' stealth capability is what the closest. I just thought it may or would be work for ground units aswell to be a low-profile, no-ZC units.

I know I often have to many and to wild ideas. Not need to consider all of them. Noone may could. So stealth were not a misunderstanding but a kind of wish I may not described or interpreted clear enough. My english is strange as it builds upon years of german lessons and I have a shady tendency to mix the grammar of the two languages. So I hereby apology for all the misunderstandings my posts may cause!

[lvjtn]

I just thought it may or would be work for ground units aswell to be a low-profile, no-ZC units.

so you ask a NEW special behaving like superior maneuver leader the problem with "stealth" special is that it HAS a meaning when you add it to a ground (land+naval akak non-air) unit: such a units is able to intercept planes with stealth special (if they can intercept, of course)

[Llewen]

My vote would be an option that isn't on the list. Just fix bugs and strange AI 3.0 behaviours, such as suicidal supply depots.

[LuisGuzman]

My vote would be an option that isn't on the list. Just fix bugs and strange AI 3.0 behaviours, such as suicidal supply depots.

Can you provide a sample to test, Owen ?

[Llewen]

Yes, I'll mail them to you. Give me a few minutes, still trying to fix the dshow errors on Linux/wine.

[LuisGuzman]

No hurry, I wrote only for you to remember

[Llewen]

Might have to wait for a while for that bug report. I'll try to send a save game the next time I see it, and it is reproducible.

[Bombast the Blue]

In a metaphor, I see here a farming community itching to finally reap some fruit out of long and hard labour...


More players and ways to get them!

I actually have some personal experience in trying to get players onto a game server and forum.
However, it was a different kind of game (FPS), with a different player typology (90%+ kids).
And given we were far from being mainstream players we actually sought just those compatible enough.
Much of our time went for managing a stream of players who ruined our playing experience.

Little to do with the OG panorama, think is safe to say, even considering H to H variants.
The similarity that remains is that for OG also, not all players are equal.
I'd guess there's much less dispersion in terms of mindset/attitude.
Its more about degree of commitment/(man hour) availability for the hobby.
Those in the top section of that "ladder" are here building things.
Those in mid sections are here playtesting, listening about what's going on or at least drop by to take the occasional peek.
Those in the bottom need to hear about a "finished product" in order to "snap into attention".
Enter the "stable platform" so many of you mention. The "fruit" in the metaphor.

Other than that what can I think of for advertising the "ripe fruit" to wider audiences?
We can find OG videos in youtube; any of that originated here and reflects the community's views and feelings?
There's surely documentation around the forum, as far as I know all in written form, some spiced by way of still illustration.
Would video tutorials/showcases reach other/more public?
Podcasting or at least video recording CCs? That is, creating "public events"? (this one seems the most ambitious to me)
Are there any facebook/instagram/myspace/whatever OG dedicated accounts?


To complement, more srictly from a (solo/campaign) player's viewpoint:
From time to time I pick up OG and give a run through E-files and campaigns.
Consistently, my impression is that the average level of difficulty is too high.
Again, a "stable platform" comes to mind.
It will enable modders and players dialoguing in a more precise dialect throughout tuning processes.
And will provide end results.
As long as the game keeps on changing the campaigns are not 100% complete either.


The "field may be sown" again in case you feel the need for a further improved "fruit".
There's even already a topic on that...

[randowe]

Are there any facebook/instagram/myspace/whatever OG dedicated accounts?

Nobody volunteered to do this job. See this thread for more information: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=117
The fb-site is currently out of service (i think).

[Bombast the Blue]

Are there any facebook/instagram/myspace/whatever OG dedicated accounts?

Nobody volunteered to do this job. See this thread for more information: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=117
The fb-site is currently out of service (i think).

Leaping into unknown territory a second time and probably for a "long shot"; (mainly) about number 2 - social media specialist:
Any of you has a son or grandson you managed to "hook" into OG?
Social media is more "natural" to the younger generations...

[Aleksandr]

It would also be usefull for those whom work on medieval mods

medieval mod is nice work, my "moral support" and hope for interest ) except small tweaks and paper ideas i think i'm out of time for serious mods... just saying btw, nobody asked

I thought about designing a Lords Of The Realm II efile, but in the end nothing came out of it. But honestly, if there's anybody here who's into the mid-90's TBS-RTS, this one was a cool mix of both.

Also, I'm like 90% done with my new OBK German campaign, I just need to text-and-test it, so let's say in a Fortnite? One problem is I'm running out of atmospheric black metal albums to listen to while designing, but youtube is a friend.

Uhm, and yep, OG doesn't need more improvements, it needs to be "finished" and kept stable.

[MaXX_Oltt]

I, personally dream of one thing in OG - it's my biggest dream - the ability of ungerstrenght/reduce the unit's strength.
Units with strength 5-6-7-8 were in SSI stock scenarios, and then widely used in some great user scenarios for engeineers, recons, heavy tanks etc.
Of course, I can do it manually in Suite by editing the savegame or in scenario settings, but the button with "+/-" is more comfortable

And maybe night turns...

[mythos]

I, personally dream of one thing in OG - it's my biggest dream - the ability of ungerstrenght/reduce the unit's strength.
Units with strength 5-6-7-8

Technically, this is possible on Efile lvl - just i have forgotten how to activate it
The tricky part is, that afterwards all campaigns of the Efile use this strength setup - thus if different campaigns shall use different setups, each time a new Efile would be necessary.

[randowe]

I, personally dream of one thing in OG - it's my biggest dream - the ability of ungerstrenght/reduce the unit's strength.
Units with strength 5-6-7-8

Technically, this is possible on Efile lvl - just i have forgotten how to activate it
The tricky part is, that afterwards all campaigns of the Efile use this strength setup - thus if different campaigns shall use different setups, each time a new Efile would be necessary.

I don't think it is possible on efile level. Only on scenario level.

But i wonder what would be the reason to do so? I mean, lets say you are a player, playing a random campaign/scenario were all units have base-strength and current strength 10. Now you buy a Tiger tank and because you think that a heavy tank detachment lacks the numbers (not much tanks) you understrength it? No player would ever do this?! I don't understand

[mythos]

It is possible, if you add a letter code to the Efile (either equip.xml or equip.txt - i forgot and as said i forgot what exactly it was).

The idea behind it came from the PBEM area (mainly Nashorn who regularly creates challenges for his family and friends), to be able to conveniently create several scenarios with a similar set of rules - unit strength being 1 of these rules.
But there was some interest by others to use it for "traditional" design. The idea here was that equipment in Efiles is calculated (or at least "educated-ly guessed" ) based on soldier numbers and carried equipment..."on paper". Historically many units didn't (or respectively "only for a short period of time" ) reached the strength written in their TOE, a fact which is generally ignored by data in the Efile. To reflect that, a different strength definition was desired. So that in the end it would be for example
light tank = 7
medium tank = 6
heavy tank = 4
infantry regular = 9
engineer = 5
infanty elite = 7
recon car/aircraft = 2
etc.

I personally dropped the idea, because it works only at Efile lvl (leading to the problem of needing at least 2 Efiles, 1 with "default" and 1 with "custom" strength), however i never asked if this could be changed - as mentioned above, the general interest in this feature was rather small.
Another thing is: the "classes" like heavy and medium tank are actually both class=2, so that it would still be possible to ugrade between different-strength units (come to think of it: i don't remember if i actually tested what happens if you upgrade from a 7-strength to a 4-strength unit). Thus outside of playing with rules, the "different strength definition" looks nice "on paper", but tricky in an actual/live gaming environment.

[randowe]

Thanks for enlighten me I have never heared about this before.

But if a designer create scenarios, why not set the strength of units at scenario level? Then you just need one efile and can set whatever strength you want at scenario level! Anyway, i guess there is something i miss or don't understand. We don't have to discuss this any further

[mythos]

But if a designer create scenarios, why not set the strength of units at scenario level? Then you just need one efile and can set whatever strength you want at scenario level!

The different thing here being the strength of units - all same vs all individual.

The setting you can access with the Suite (aka "Default Unit Strength" ) works as you describe: all newly purchased, raised by Trigger and raised as campaign Proto units will have the same strength. So i.e. you buy an infantry at HQ, raise a tank by Trigger and get a fighter Proto - all 3 units will have for example the same "default" strength of 7.

With the described setting at Efile lvl (lets call it "Custom Unit Strength" for differentiation), each individual unit (E:#### code) can have an individual strength. So taking the above example: you buy an infantry at HQ which has 9 strength, raise a tank by Trigger with 7 strength and get a fighter Proto with 12 strength - the 3 units will have their own individual "custom" strength. Not all 3x9 strength or 3x7, but 1x9 1x7 and 1x12.

[randowe]

Okay, i understand. Thanks again

[Aleksandr]

This is absolutely unnecessary, if only efile keepers used Sapper's approach. But of course that efile is dead like disco, and nobody I know about uses the units=unit system, but rather the unit=weapon one, and this leads to all kinds of silly.

In a properly balanced efile you don't need to use different strength based on units' role, simply because that's already taken into account in stats. What's the point of dropping a recon car's strength down to 2 sp? To represent that it just scouts, and doesnt fight? Isn't it better to just drop down its stats?

There are some positive things about the idea, mainly the fact that specialist units would be used for their intended role, like e.g. bridge engineers with strength 4 would not be wasted on assaults, but the main issue is that it doesn't solve anything that cannot be solved otherwise, and it could open an ugly can of worms... or bugs.

Imho anyone who wants to use this should start with an efile based on Sapper's, and abandon the unit=weapon system, and use the unit=unit (be it battalion, company, whatever, this is not the main question), with stats simulating the firepower and defense of the unit. But balancing such an efile must be an absolute nightmare, and even a basic research could be a major pita.

When your Pz I unit represents a company of Pz Is, you don't need to fix its strength to fix its strength. It's already a company of Pz Is.