Graphics Wish List

[mjhbuckeye]

IMO the MAP series needs a graphics update to bring it in line with other WDS series and increase gamer satisfaction. While most of my comments and suggestions will reference WOV, such will also be applicable to WOM.

(1) The game map. The map first released with WOV was in a word, crap, almost cartoonish in appearance. When WOM was released a couple of years later, both games adopted a two-color map which, by my eye, appears to simulate a navigational chart complete with notations. and that is the way it has remained for over a decade. I guess this is great if you are looking at the game as an exercise in a simulator, but far from satisfying as a game experience, especially when compared to the excellent maps being generated in all the other WDS/JTS games. For example, I am very drawn to the satellite-type imagery used for islands and land masses in the Naval Campaigns series and think they would be a superb adaptation in the MAP games. Love the cloud effect too and I believe that could be utilized to enhance the MAP series.

(2) The aircraft profiles. JTS from back in the HPS days up to the present under WDS has worked hard in most of the series to make the images which show up in the unit info boxes when the unit is selected, as well as in the 3D images on the map (not applicable in MAP) historically accurate in appearance and colors. In the MAP games, the unit selector brings up a window with an aircraft profile for the unit. These profiles, while decent in conformation are all rendered in grayscale of various tones, or occasionally sepia tones, and totally devoid of national, branch and unit markings. As an example, let's look at the F4. One can't tell an Air Force Phantom from a Navy or Marine Phantom in in WOV or a IAF F4 in WOM while historically they all appeared in very different livery. USAF aircraft post-mid 1965 were in jungle camouflage of shades of green and brown (and bare metal before) while planes of the Naval services were light dove gray with white undersides and NAVY, or MARINES prominently placed on the rear fuselage. Israeli Phantoms had camouflage similar to the USAF in Vietnam, but with greater use of browns and tans more suitable to a desert landscape. The point being, a Phantom is a Phantom is a Phantom just doesn't work in a historical simulation nor should it. To take things a step further, WDS, in other series, has again applied detail to the information boxes as to the depiction of the individual units down to the regimental level making sure they had the correct color and appearance of topcoat, facing and headgear as well as the standard carried into battle. To achieve the same historical verisimilitude in the MAPS games, the aircraft profile could be unit individualized in the same fashion. Again, referring to WOV, while all USAF squadrons carried the same basic camo livery in Vietnam, on the vertical stabilizer would appear a large two-letter code unique to each squadron. There was much greater variance in Marine and Navy squadrons which had high color squadron specific decoration on the vertical stabilizer and upper fuselage of the aircraft and, with carrier based Naval squadrons, the name of the originating carrier in block letters along the forward upper fuselage. While I'm sure that the Israeli air units and those of their various Arab adversaries depicted in WOM had similar unique squadron embellishments (as did the squadrons of the VPAF in WOV), I'm not as familiar with those, but I'm certain one could come-up with the correct markings upon a modest amount of research. Again, I am not suggesting something that WDS/JTS hasn't done or strives to do in literally every other game published. Sure, it would take some more artwork and a coding revision to match the correct image with the correct unit (as opposed to the generic Phantom which I used as an example), but I think it would be worth the candle.

That's it for now. I am interested in what others think, re: the graphics in MAP.

[Dion]

Couldn't have said it better. The Modern Airpower series needs a graphical upgrade more than any other series. The way it is now, it doesn't look like a game I would want to invest my time playing. The series looks interesting, but looks dull. If it looked exciting, I would seriously consider playing it.

[mjhbuckeye]

If I didn't make my point clear, JTS, and now WDS have done a lot to make most of the games more visually appealing and immersive, most recently in the Naval games and the Napoleonic series. The same types of enhancements would certainly give a boost to the MAP titles. Since it is novel subject matter and game system (although the system has much in common with the other continuous time titles, those in the Naval Campaigns series) a potential buyer looking at the graphics of MAP titles might well be put off from taking the leap, which is a pity since the games themselves are very good. Unfortunately, MAP seems seem to be at the tail end of the line in committing resources for enhancement.

[PaulSan]

I don't own either of these games, but I did look at jpg's of their maps. These are standard IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) charts used by pilots that are flying using IFR. As soon as I saw the maps, I thought that the maps make perfect sense. When you fly IFR, technically you don't look out the window. You only look at your instruments. So, the maps are a schematic of your various flight paths available to you. If this is what the author wanted, then having a pretty map is unnecessary.

I'm just letting you know that the maps are a copy of real world maps that pilots use every day. That's all.

[mjhbuckeye]

I'm just letting you know that the maps are a copy of real world maps that pilots use every day. That's all.

Exactly my point. The vibe given because of these charts is that of a map exercise in a simulator and not "real" flights over "real" terrain. I sincerely doubt that the consumers of any of the land based WDS game series would be drawn to a playing surface replicating a AAA or Rand-McNally "real world" road map, no matter that such are used by travelers every day.

If this is what the author wanted, then having a pretty map is unnecessary.

I rather think that what the author wanted, is irrelevant. The important element is what the consumer wants and time and time again the publishers of JTS/WDS have produced and enhanced what you call a "pretty map" because it makes the games more attractive and immersive for the consumer.

The maps in MAP games should be what one sees out the window in VFR (including clouds) not the dull look of a flight chart.

[PaulSan]

I'm sorry if my posting upset you. That wasn't my intention. Please accept my apology. I was just trying to point out that the map is an IFR map. I have no idea how the game is played. I felt that you were upset with me and I wanted to clear this up. I have a lot of WDS games and I really do think the maps are 'pretty' for lack of a better word. I wasn't trying to attack or be critical of your original post. I was trying to help. Being a pilot, I recognized this is an IFR map and I knew that not everyone knows what an IFR map is. That's all I was trying to do. Once again, I am sorry if I upset you.

[mjhbuckeye]

Paul, please I am not upset with you at all. I did think your use of the word "pretty" in describing game maps was pejorative, but I see now, and accept that you were lacking a better word to describe the visually excellent maps WDS/JTS has cranked out in most of the games published and what I think is sorely lacking in the MAP series. As I think I pointed out, the first map for WOV was pretty weak sauce and the replica nav chart initiated in WOM and updated to WOV was a very marked improvement but fell far short in making the MAP games visually appealing or immersive. Again, I am not asking for anything that WDS has not done or is in the process of doing in every other game series published and are in fact doing right now in the enhancements to the Naval Campaign games.

You'll have to forgive me if my tone was overly critical. As you might have figured out, I like these games very much and am very passionate about them, although (looking around) I may be the only one. I'm under no illusion that any of these suggestions will be adopted which seems to be confirmed by a lack of an official comment saying yes, no, maybe or someday. I'm just putting it out there.

[rahamy]

I'm under no illusion that any of these suggestions will be adopted which seems to be confirmed by a lack of an official comment saying yes, no, maybe or someday. I'm just putting it out there.

A lack of "official" comment is just that we have soooo much work on the plate as it is, that MAP is close to, if not at the bottom of the pile. We do have plans for the engine, but no idea when it will get implemented as there's so much else in line in front of it.

[PaulSan]

mjhbuckeye, I do have a stupid question for you. Is there any special meaning to your name? I live in Ohio, the 'Buckeye' state. Initially, a few weeks back when I saw your name, I thought I had found someone living close by, but I see you live in New Jersey. So, is there any special meaning to your name? Just curious.

[MikeC]

My preference is for the existing maps. The player is planning an operation with multiple squadrons/wings, and not "flying" an individual aircraft. At the level we are playing, we (imo) are standing over aviation sectional charts, and not looking at the countryside passing below.

I don't want to start a flame war, but I would not like to see the existing maps thrown out. Maybe add in a "natural" map background as an option.

On the other point, aircraft graphics that differentiate between nationalities or service branches would be very welcome!