Would you buy map packs as DLC?

[noco97]

I've played other wargames where map packs have been DLC and if I like the game, I usually end up buying them.

I think everyone here has played Bull Run enough times to desire some new maps. Feels like an easy way to enhance the game. Idk how hard creating maps is for the devs, but they seem like they would be fairly straight forward in regards to implementation. I could not image a whole lot of quirks that would take away from the game. Nor do I see a need for a lot of subsequent updates to make them work.

Feels like a fairly straight forward way to generate money and give players a less repetitive expierence. NV especially could use some more variation.

[luftysoldat]

That or just open it up to allow the modding community to create them. Honestly I think what will kill this game quicker than the devs eventually moving on to something else is the fact that they have kept so much of the game locked for any kind of modding. I mean for goodness sakes we can't even add different musket sounds?? It is my hope that when they are finally finish with any further development, they will give up the keys to the castle. If modders can get a hold of it you will see a huge resurgence in revenue for the devs even after its end of life.

But to answer your question, yes I would pay for this.

[Olek]

If my problem with this game was maps, sure, but it isn't my problem so why would more maps make a difference?, so the AI can be retarded in a new location?

[Vasco]

Yes.

[Blackfyre]

Originally posted by Olek:

If my problem with this game was maps, sure, but it isn't my problem so why would more maps make a difference?, so the AI can be retarded in a new location?

Play HQ in the saddle and let's see how smart you are with only First Person perspective and without overhead perspective of troops other than the ones you can see. That's imo the actual game, especially if doing a career. Campaigns are too easy, if you play every battle, you will win easily regardless which side you play.

[Somethings Burnin]

Once they fix the bugs in the base game and then W&L, I would gladly support map packs or expansions... But without bug fixes this game is broken to me.

[noco97]

Originally posted by Olek:

If my problem with this game was maps, sure, but it isn't my problem so why would more maps make a difference?, so the AI can be retarded in a new location?

I'd rather play the poor AI on new maps than fighting a 5th battle of the Chickahominy each campaign.

Shiloh, Manassas, Chancellorsville, and the Battlefields of Cold Harbor and the Seven Days become very repetitive. I would fork over a few bucks for more maps in a game I greatly enjoy playing.

[noco97]

Originally posted by Blackfyre:

Originally posted by Olek:

If my problem with this game was maps, sure, but it isn't my problem so why would more maps make a difference?, so the AI can be retarded in a new location?

Play HQ in the saddle and let's see how smart you are with only First Person perspective and without overhead perspective of troops other than the ones you can see. That's imo the actual game, especially if doing a career. Campaigns are too easy, if you play every battle, you will win easily regardless which side you play.

I haven't ever lost a campaign unfortunately. Seems like I'll have to give in saddle view a try. Seems a lot more micro intensive but the ai is so terrible that anything to make the game harder is something worth trying.

[Alex]

I wouldnt even consider giving another dime to these devs until they prove they can follow through. Just wait until they add in their next half baked idea that takes four months to improve instead of trying to fix the broken one they just finished putting band-aids on.

[Olek]

Originally posted by Blackfyre:

Originally posted by Olek:

If my problem with this game was maps, sure, but it isn't my problem so why would more maps make a difference?, so the AI can be retarded in a new location?

Play HQ in the saddle and let's see how smart you are with only First Person perspective and without overhead perspective of troops other than the ones you can see. That's imo the actual game, especially if doing a career. Campaigns are too easy, if you play every battle, you will win easily regardless which side you play.

I don't believe handicapping myself to help the AI is the solution, that would be like cutting off my legs to give a turtle a chance in a race, I would be much happier if the Devs just improved the AI.

[Olek]

Originally posted by noco97:

Originally posted by Olek:

If my problem with this game was maps, sure, but it isn't my problem so why would more maps make a difference?, so the AI can be retarded in a new location?

I'd rather play the poor AI on new maps than fighting a 5th battle of the Chickahominy each campaign.

Shiloh, Manassas, Chancellorsville, and the Battlefields of Cold Harbor and the Seven Days become very repetitive. I would fork over a few bucks for more maps in a game I greatly enjoy playing.

That is fine, if you are happy playing poor AI and would like more maps then you respond to the OP with a yes, why you are responding to me is a mystery.

[noco97]

Originally posted by Olek:

Originally posted by noco97:

I'd rather play the poor AI on new maps than fighting a 5th battle of the Chickahominy each campaign.

Shiloh, Manassas, Chancellorsville, and the Battlefields of Cold Harbor and the Seven Days become very repetitive. I would fork over a few bucks for more maps in a game I greatly enjoy playing.

That is fine, if you are happy playing poor AI and would like more maps then you respond to the OP with a yes, why you are responding to me is a mystery.

I am responding because I am the OP

[Olek]

Originally posted by noco97:

Originally posted by Olek:

That is fine, if you are happy playing poor AI and would like more maps then you respond to the OP with a yes, why you are responding to me is a mystery.

I am responding because I am the OP

LOL, my apologies.

[GreatScots]

Originally posted by Blackfyre:

Originally posted by Olek:

If my problem with this game was maps, sure, but it isn't my problem so why would more maps make a difference?, so the AI can be retarded in a new location?

Play HQ in the saddle and let's see how smart you are with only First Person perspective and without overhead perspective of troops other than the ones you can see. That's imo the actual game, especially if doing a career. Campaigns are too easy, if you play every battle, you will win easily regardless which side you play.

I really enjoyed playing this way, too. Got a lot of complaints about it on my videos, so I guess people don't enjoy watching other people's videos from that perspective, but I think it levels the playing field with some of the AI's tactical decisions.

[GreatScots]

Originally posted by noco97:

I've played other wargames where map packs have been DLC and if I like the game, I usually end up buying them.

I think everyone here has played Bull Run enough times to desire some new maps. Feels like an easy way to enhance the game. Idk how hard creating maps is for the devs, but they seem like they would be fairly straight forward in regards to implementation. I could not image a whole lot of quirks that would take away from the game. Nor do I see a need for a lot of subsequent updates to make them work.

Feels like a fairly straight forward way to generate money and give players a less repetitive expierence. NV especially could use some more variation.

I don't think this needs to be a paid DLC. I'd rather they occasionally insert some of their generic maps to stand in for the historical battlefield maps. I would think that would be the lowest effort move to address the problem.

[Olek]

Originally posted by GreatScots:

Originally posted by Blackfyre:

Play HQ in the saddle and let's see how smart you are with only First Person perspective and without overhead perspective of troops other than the ones you can see. That's imo the actual game, especially if doing a career. Campaigns are too easy, if you play every battle, you will win easily regardless which side you play.

I really enjoyed playing this way, too. Got a lot of complaints about it on my videos, so I guess people don't enjoy watching other people's videos from that perspective, but I think it levels the playing field with some of the AI's tactical decisions.

I don't think it's fair that I should have to buy the DLC to get a challenge out of this game, I should not need to pay more money only to handicap myself by not being able to watch the battles, it was not required when I played Take Command - 2nd Manassas 18 years ago, and it certainly isn't required when playing any of the Ultimate General games.