Not for not, I’m just curious. I’m sure there must be some advantage to using ABattlemap, but why on earth would anyone want to play with such rudimentary graphics? The units look like they are being made for an old Atari gaming system from the 1970s.
No overhead for the computer
Its much faster to move the pieces on the board
More customability
Faster game play
Less complicated interface
Not as gunked up with prettiness
You can see all or most of the map at a time without degredation of graphics
The only thing battlemap is lacking are dice, and let’s face it, using the house dicey works JUST fine, so it’s not really LACKING as it isnt in the way of a simple gaming utility. Life really sucked before Battlemap to track what was going on.
I would honestly never play it just based on the graphics. Just my opinion though.
I would honestly never play it just based on the graphics. Just my opinion though.
You are probably under 30?
Gameplay > graphics
Every single time
Nope, well past my 30 mark. It’s not an issue of only playing games for graphics. I think game play trumps graphics every time, in that if a games mechanics are good they are more important than the visuals. That being said, I also think that given the availability of far superior graphics, I’d play the better looking game 100% of the time.
I would honestly never play it just based on the graphics. Just my opinion though.
You are probably under 30?
Gameplay > graphics
Every single time
It was just one of the many reasons battlemap is superior to tripleA. WoW is better than DAOC, but graphics are only one reason it is so.
Yeah,
well it’s been fun talking, but it’s really pointless to do so. We’ll all play and enjoy what we will, and there’s no need to sway others’ opinions on this…
Happy gaming, all :-)
Forgot one, easier to update maps with battlemap too. So putting bid units and cash in, and fixing any dice errors or forgetting to put units on does not require a PhD to perform like it does on TripleA. (Fine, not that complicated, but sure is a LOT more tedious than it is in Battlemap.)
I wasn’t ever trying to convince anyone of anything.
I was curious to understand what is good about Battlemap if the graphics are so horrific.
@Cmdr:
Forgot one, easier to update maps with battlemap too. So putting bid units and cash in, and fixing any dice errors or forgetting to put units on does not require a PhD to perform like it does on TripleA. (Fine, not that complicated, but sure is a LOT more tedious than it is in Battlemap.)
Not sure what you mean. I find editing with Triple A to be a very simple process. maybe it’s just because I’m used to how it works.
Maybe I’ll try to download Battlemap and see. But with the way it looks I doubt I’d ever use it.
@Cmdr:
Forgot one, easier to update maps with battlemap too. So putting bid units and cash in, and fixing any dice errors or forgetting to put units on does not require a PhD to perform like it does on TripleA. (Fine, not that complicated, but sure is a LOT more tedious than it is in Battlemap.)
Not sure what you mean. I find editing with Triple A to be a very simple process. maybe it’s just because I’m used to how it works.
Maybe I’ll try to download Battlemap and see. But with the way it looks I doubt I’d ever use it.
It is simple. But it is also way more complicated than it is in battlemap. In battlemap, you just click delete and delete them or click the tile and put more on as needed. In TripleA, you have to go to edit mode, click zone, click country, click type of unit…way harder than clicking unit and dropping them as needed.
Well truth be told I don’t really use the edit that much anyway (and it is very simplistic to use at any rate given the rare situations where it is justified or necessary). On the well designed games there is little to no need for edits anyway. In Triple A pretty much everything is now covered by the engine. So the only edits I encounter is when people forget things and personally I’m not particularly fond of people editing because they didn’t take the time to plan their moves properly. If you play a game and need to continually edit then you need to better learn how to play in i.m.o.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I was just curious why people would use the program given the apparent lack of aesthetic design.
From everything I’ve read here it doesn’t appear that there are any advantages other then a few different ways of accomplishing the same thing.
Appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me.
@Cmdr:
I like the old tiles still. Classic, refined, upper crust. :P
Can you post the old tiles for me please?
Sure.
i dunno if that’s any better actually…. the destroyer and cruiser are almost identical, and the pieces are all so small i can barely make them out and have to squint
(1920,1200 pixel screen here…)
i dunno if that’s any better actually…. the destroyer and cruiser are almost identical, and the pieces are all so small i can barely make them out and have to squint
(1920,1200 pixel screen here…)
Jenn is not playing with “big pieces” which I believe most battlemap players do play. It is very easy to differentiate ships and everything using “big pieces”. If you pay any attention to these old icons here, you are basically only servicing Jenn and maybe a couple other people who are unaware that “big pieces” even exist.
It is possible for one player to be using the ancient non-big pieces and the other player to be using “big pieces” with both players even unaware the difference exists.
Here
That one is with the new turn order - most people’s G40 modules are not compatible with this order - theirs has the outdated Alpha2 order.
But you can see what the icons look like here
Here
correct me if i am wrong, but those are the exact ones i posted earlier, then posted again after i revised the bomber to be fatter
Right - you had them.
I have had zero trouble distinguishing boats or planes with the big pieces and don’t think they need tweaked. The bigger issue to me is having the toolbar and info view with correct turn order reflected, which I accomplished a while ago.
