The battle screen is bad

[GeneralNoob]

I just don't have any confidence in the team being able to properly fix and polish everything before launch.

After the nonsense with city skyline 2 and lamplighters, they have to. Their stock tanked. Development was quite open this time and they took a lot from I:R (as in learning from there and how to approach things).

I haven't been lying when I said that I expected the game to come out in Q2 2026,

My expectation is still Q3 2025, Q1 2026. Not sure if it will be in the same quarter as vampire bloodlines 2. It is going to be another flag ship title afterall.

game development takes time and this announcement (along with the shortened time from announcement to release that has been alluded to) felt premature from the day it was teased.

Not sure how much more time you think is needed. They dont need extensive graphics or audio recording. It is primarly a map game. The core mechanics have to sit and are the bread and butter of the game. Graphics can be modded and are low priority and regarding the core mechanics they were quite open with the tinto talks. The game will likely evolve over the years, but I am expecting a polish and content as EU4 after several DLCs.

 

[JacceDON]

After the nonsense with city skyline 2 and lamplighters, they have to. Their stock tanked. Development was quite open this time and they took a lot from I:R (as in learning from there and how to approach things).

That's why they shouldn't have announced the game in this state, or during any stage of actual development.

My expectation is still Q3 2025, Q1 2026. Not sure if it will be in the same quarter as vampire bloodlines 2. It is going to be another flag ship title afterall.

Not sure how much more time you think is needed. They dont need extensive graphics or audio recording. It is primarly a map game. The core mechanics have to sit and are the bread and butter of the game. Graphics can be modded and are low priority and regarding the core mechanics they were quite open with the tinto talks.

Core mechanics are not enough, version 1.0 needs to work on all levels. Nothing is low priority, you can't launch a new flagship with graphics and UI that needs to be modded - and just look at Stellaris patch 4.0, Paradox is still releasing broken shite like nobody's business.

 

[GeneralNoob]

That's why they shouldn't have announced the game in this state, or during any stage of actual development.

They didnt announce EU5 yet?

Core mechanics are not enough, version 1.0 needs to work on all levels. Nothing is low priority,

Of course there is low priority stuff. I dont give a flying damn about the battle graphics or the character portrays or even the sprites of the units. Having working AI is simply more important. Up until now they didnt provide a reason to doubt that other things, even the things I dont give a crap about, are not working or have a lack of polish. The battle graphics are minor things to change. Its not going to require 4 months of works. The point of the tinto talks is precisely to get feedback on it, so the team can adjust these things.

you can't launch a new flagship with graphics and UI that needs to be modded - and just look at Stellaris patch 4.0, Paradox is still releasing broken shite like nobody's business.

I am not playing Stellaris, so I cant comment on it, but AoW4 has a high level of polish. Their DLCs are usually well received by the fans as well. They could also just be allocating most their ressources into EU5 right now. So beats me what is happening there, but I have confidence that they will smash EU5.

 

[SAmaster]

I think being able to see the general you are fighting is important for roleplay. But I'd place them not to say a terrain screen, or the Flag icons. Leader portraits should come with their battle stats though- so you can tell 'this is a 3 fire, 5 shock, and he has a trait that gives him +5 discipline'. In certain contexts knowing who is leading an army is important. In one war I fought, there was a 6 maneuver general that managed to speedy gonzales his way across the map with me being unable to catch him. Maybe that's not important for the battle itself, but it's important to know that general is out there to cause problems. Likewise- I'd put a little crown next to a monarch-general or prince-general, or leader-general, I assume there will be some events for defeating and capturing, or killing an enemy leader.

 

[Razmorg]

The one thing I like a lot is that it looks a bit more like a battlefield with the boxes floating in the middle rather than how the older games looked like the flanks were fused to the UI. But yeah, looks scuffed and lacking in a lot of information + clarity. I'm gonna assume it's because it lacks polish / proper pass but I don't think it hurts to voice that critique now that we were shown this version.

Gonna be fun to see stuff tomorrow! Guess we'll see how close it is to release. Personally I enjoy what they did with CK3 and Vic3 so I'm not that worried.

 

[peteoj]

I like being able to see the general it would be incredibly disappointing and unhelpful if I wasn't able to do so, I just wish they were positioned better.

 

[ourg]

the UI looks like coming from a 2000s game

 

[bokorthedust]

the UI looks like coming from a 2000s game

Well, people were bitching a lot that the UI looks like a mobile game (whatever that means) so I guess this is an improvement

 

[Álvaro Núñez de Lara]

The teutonic flag is also outside frame if you notice. Tiny detail easily fixable but still

 

[Briloner]

When I read the TintoTalks at first, I liked it.

Having read the criticism, I have to agree some sub-optimal things.
But apart from easily changeable alignment from elements, the main-point is that numbers and info is missing, e.g. character-values, explicite terrain-names, etc.
It might be that the terrain is coded by colour and pattern of the background

--> some optimization is needed, but we have already seen, that they constantly improve. I am not worried here. (Some more numbers, better alignment and a better colour scheme overall - but minor to me)

 

[WrathfulCelt]

What I thought was odd was the orientation of the battle simulation, with the flanks being placed vertically rather than horizontally. It just makes it harder for the mind to immediately correlate the flanks as laid out in your army setup with what's happening on the battlefield UI.

My annoyance is that the entire thing is horizontal rather than vertical. I know it helps even out which is the left and right flanks of each side, but as a player I'd prefer it if I could, at a glance, determine how my left and right are doing by looking to my left and right sides of the window. This will just take an extra half-second of re-orientation every battle, which could be annoying in a larger war with multiple battles ongoing.

As a bit of an 'out there' suggestion, why do we need to orient the battle correctly at all? Why can't we have the left flank engage the enemy "left flank" and the right flank engage the enemy "right flank", so named because they're on the left or right side of the screen, rather than from the perspective of the army. Makes everything more consistent, and no need to flip the flanks whether attacking or defending