.
* It's been awhile since I played the last iteration so my memory could very well be a little hazy but my immediate somatic reaction was that there were subtle changes which made the experience dramatically more satisfying. Since this was an initial somatic reaction, and one tied to immersion, I am only now, in hindsight, gonna try and analyze that somatic reaction and see if I can put it into words that may be of practical value.
- The transport offload of units has been belayed from the last version allowing me to focus on the mission brief narrative without feeling conflicted about taking my eyes off the scene before me. The faintness of the music also supported this focus in the very important storytelling opening. Ultimately this immersion will be facilitated by voice acting but for now these subtle changes are a significant advance over the previous release.
- Speaking of the transport.... No longer making its preservation central to the opening proceeding is a good move. I think that design mechanic could work but the best way to do it, I believe, would be to reward fullfilling the preservation condition by making the transport fully operational. However, that would make for a different story, and mission advance construction, and I'm not suggesting or advocating that. The way its being handled now works well. The action, melded to story, is balanced and compelling as is.
- Now when the units are, alas, deployed I have a better sense of the situation than before were I was disoriented from the get go because I couldn't keep up with the mission briefs and the concurrent need to effectively react to the action. Minimizing command disorientation is key and when disorientation dominates, as it does in the command and control mechanics of the new and disappointing "Planetary Annhilation", this alone can be the downfall of total immersion and any promising gameplay.
- With units deployed, and no reinforcements or manufacturing opportunities on the horizon, I make a preservation assessment and divide the units into Group 1 and 2 (I won't create a spoiler by describing an further details or my rationale). With beacons up on the mini map, I proceed maneuvering. Now here again come up changes for the better. Last iteration I recall mainly just blasting my way to advance. Now I have to be much more canny in my advance by incorporating timed tactical retreats. The multi vector enemy assaults are well balanced at this juncture to afford me the opportunity to survive while not allowing me to just blast my way through mindlessly. Challenging fights which are yet affording ample opportunity to think on my feet.
- It is also at this point that a core WZ shortfall comes to the fore pointing directly to areas unfinished in the original game and which explain the entire development of TW and NTW style maps and gameplay in MP by the fan base to deal with these inherent source issues. But to address these issues involves fundamental source code changes to the PF approach (which also dovetails with the continued deving of the Command & Control Battle Cam Mode) and that is all beyond the scope of CAM 4. That said, there are a number of topographical design strats to minimize this issue of inherent bumbling onto death, and incessant baby sitting to lessen casualties due strictly to inadequate PF snd PW (in close quarter multi combat group coordinated maneuvers), that follow an entirely different course than NTW design. In making "New Pangaea SP" I utilized all these design strats. So far, I've been able to manage my way through these issues without undo frustration so I don't think any redesign is called for.
- On an entirely visual note.... I'm curious to see how your landscape textures would look by removing the AZ striation decal. I'll probably go ahead and do it on my copy, just outta satisfying my curiosity.
* As I proceed at this savor pace of play testing, I'll share my thoughts on my ongoing experiences in these type installments.
- Regards, RV.
.