Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Future of this game

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Brother against Brother: The Drawing of the Sword >> Future of this game Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Future of this game - 10/31/2015 12:54:33 PM   
sherlock1

 

Posts: 106
Joined: 7/18/2003
From: new york
Status: offline
Is there any plans to add new battles to this game. Hopefully there are
Post #: 1
RE: Future of this game - 10/31/2015 6:12:58 PM   
rickier65

 

Posts: 14062
Joined: 4/20/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jokco Clark

Is there any plans to add new battles to this game. Hopefully there are


I'm sure Gil will respond with better info. My understanding is that they are still planning to release more battles in this series. I certainly hope they do.

Thanks
Rick

(in reply to sherlock1)
Post #: 2
RE: Future of this game - 11/1/2015 1:51:20 PM   
shoelessbivouac


Posts: 63
Joined: 4/29/2015
Status: offline
The last word from game reps here has heretofore and always been: Absolutely. But, no release date has been announced. By Christmas, you ask? Wouldn't that be nice.


_____________________________

Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they're yours --R. Bach

(in reply to sherlock1)
Post #: 3
RE: Future of this game - 11/3/2015 1:15:50 AM   
Rosseau

 

Posts: 2347
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline
Also, modding is still tedious compared to say Ageod or Paradox. Yes, I would like more for my $50. The announcement of a new scenario would put the game back in the "limelight" for a few days. My guess is sales were not that great, so we need to create a buzz somehow, or we all lose.

(in reply to shoelessbivouac)
Post #: 4
RE: Future of this game - 11/4/2015 6:49:40 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
I'm not sure from the initial question whether it's about new battles for BAB#1 or new battles for the BAB series, so I guess I'll answer both, as well as the subsequent posts.

Regarding BAB#1, we most certainly do plan additional scenarios, including the official release of the Williamsburg 2-person one that has long been in public beta, but that needs to wait a bit longer, since I need to focus on preparing the first scenario for BAB#2 for internal testing. BAB#1 will remain only devoted to the current four battles, with any other battles being in new releases. The need to get new scenarios out there is not lost on us, but I'm the only one who can do that, and am spread incredibly thin (in no small part because of my day job).

Regarding BAB#2, I've by now done the lion's share of the work on the scenario files, but have more to do, and I also have to use our internal map-editor to assign terrain values to the map -- all something I am hoping to do during the month of November. This means, of course, that a Christmas release is impossible, but I am hopeful that we can get it out during the first quarter of 2016. (That is a hope, not a promise!)

Regarding modding, Rosseau, I'm wondering if you could indicate what is tedious about modding -- are you referring to changing the scenario files, or to positioning units, or both?

There's one thing I'm curious about, and would welcome your thoughts (as well as thoughts of people still on the fence about buying BAB). It is clear that some people find the four battles in BAB#1 to be too small to merit purchase, and as I've mentioned previously BAB#2 (as well as BAB#3) will be devoted to a much larger battle, one with roughly twice as many units as First Bull Run (currently our largest battle). How many scenarios do you think there should be when a battle is a big one? BAB#1 had around 20 at the time of release, but it is more difficult to come up with 20 different ideas for a single battle, so I am not confident that there would be 20 in BAB#2. What's your thinking on this issue?

(in reply to Rosseau)
Post #: 5
RE: Future of this game - 11/4/2015 6:44:07 PM   
Ironclad

 

Posts: 1917
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline
Thanks for the update Gil. I thought Christmas was a likely non-runner for BAB2 but hoped it might be available soon after but I'll just have to be more patient. You need to clone yourself or get a pixie helper!

As I tend to play multiplayer a smaller scenario is only of use as a learning tool. For me its the full battle preferably on an extended map with free or fixed deployment and the full duration although a day or late start scenario might appeal as a lesser option if the situation is interesting enough. Of course in the case of the really big battles that hopefully we may get to see in any later BABs, then localised scenarios of areas of the battlefield would also be of interest.


(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 6
RE: Future of this game - 11/5/2015 1:51:03 AM   
Rosseau

 

Posts: 2347
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline
Regarding modding, I'm referring to changing unit stats, etc.

Using Microsoft Works, it reminds me of modding the Close Combat series. The toughest thing for me is adding Union forces and messing up the whole numbering system for the confederates below.

I need to check your modding guide to see if that's addressed.

(in reply to Ironclad)
Post #: 7
RE: Future of this game - 11/12/2015 1:52:24 PM   
kennonlightfoot

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline
quote:

There's one thing I'm curious about, and would welcome your thoughts (as well as thoughts of people still on the fence about buying BAB). It is clear that some people find the four battles in BAB#1 to be too small to merit purchase, and as I've mentioned previously BAB#2 (as well as BAB#3) will be devoted to a much larger battle, one with roughly twice as many units as First Bull Run (currently our largest battle). How many scenarios do you think there should be when a battle is a big one? BAB#1 had around 20 at the time of release, but it is more difficult to come up with 20 different ideas for a single battle, so I am not confident that there would be 20 in BAB#2. What's your thinking on this issue?


You have to look at what the main competition is for this type game. That is HPS/JT games which include hundreds of scenarios and usually multiple battles since they include entire campaigns in their releases. This is what the typical Civil War gamer is use to seeing. For instance HPS/JT's Campaign Antietam includes historic and alternate battle scenarios for Antietam, South Mountain, First Bull Run, Second Bull Run, Cedar Mountain, Chantilly, and a bunch of smaller pieces of these battles.

Your game system can't be as easily modified to handle so many alternatives but you do need to include more within a release to justify $50 price tag. Since you aren't producing a game with a huge jump in technology and change in game play like SOW series, I don't think you can expect gamers to buy games based around a single battle. The first release had only First Bull Run as a really well balanced battle. The other battles while nice were more of historical interest than playable games against an opponent. The first release should have included both First and Second Bull Run plus Cedar Mountain.

You are going to have a similar problem around your next release if it includes only Second Bull Run. A lot of players over on the ACWGC site are waiting for something they don't already have. The plus for BaB is that it doesn't have a new approach to the combat system for Civil War which I really like. But that is hard to sell to people who already have the battle being sold in two or three other formats. A large battle like Gettysburg could be sold as a stand alone game but I am afraid that Second Bull Run would be better handled as a low price upgrade to BAB #1.


_____________________________

Kennon

(in reply to Rosseau)
Post #: 8
RE: Future of this game - 11/20/2015 11:15:10 PM   
Rosseau

 

Posts: 2347
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline
+1

I am sure you are not going to charge another $50 for the next installment. Instead, do like Conflict of Heroes.

Yes, CoH was somewhat complex and quite different play style for me, but I always felt I was getting a lot of content from the games.

(in reply to kennonlightfoot)
Post #: 9
RE: Future of this game - 11/21/2015 6:00:27 AM   
zakblood


Posts: 21510
Joined: 10/4/2012
Status: offline
price for me is secondary, game and battle is more important, as i wish to support the makers so they can adapt or change to a new engine one day, with more sales this will happen sooner rather than later, with less it won't and maybe one day these and many others won't spend the time and effort on fringe games, where as FPS etc make better returns i'm sorry to say.

there's many good games out now days that didn't or don't get the support from gamers that maybe they should have, i've been on more than a few alpha's and beta's and seen some very good games not do so well and some right turkeys imo that sold better than most expected, me included, so the game itself mattered little, it was the feeling of others who made it, forums imo are the key, get a healthy one and the game seems to do better, have a less active one and little interest is kept with no new or less new players coming in weekly or monthly or at all for some.

which is a shame and will one day stop most war game development as cost v returns aren't what they used to be so costs at the start maybe getting higher as results / returns just don't pay the bills, so it's becoming more niche market not less in the years i've been playing, with the cost for some getting higher or staying high now for longer because of it, with more sales these would drop or go slightly lower

(in reply to Rosseau)
Post #: 10
RE: Future of this game - 11/21/2015 6:10:49 AM   
zakblood


Posts: 21510
Joined: 10/4/2012
Status: offline
i'll give another example,

a high end sports car costs more than a production car, as the costs of development are spread over less buyers, not more

standard car say 100,000 units or more, against a sports car of 50 to 200 made, cost of developments for each one is about the same, to make and build, parts used and advertise may be more or less, but still goes into the overall costs, so minus sales from development costs give the reason why a smaller user base / sales equals a higher cost for a more niche market, the more niche you go, ie the smaller the sales, the returns are less so the cost per unit rises, not falls, basic maths...

and same rule of thumb applies to Brother against Brother, as it does to let say War in the West etc, compared to lets say Warhammer, Panzer Corp or Order of Battle Pacific type of games re sales, which can be priced more agressively than others as the returns per sales are expected to be higher so a lower figure can be given at the start, as more spreads the load over a bigger user base...

(in reply to zakblood)
Post #: 11
RE: Future of this game - 11/21/2015 10:34:48 AM   
Recognition


Posts: 186
Joined: 2/24/2002
From: A Brit in Holland / UK
Status: offline
I agree zakblood. Its the same in the Music Industry, almost impossible to make profit from record - CD sales nowadays due to illegal downloads, that's why most of the established bands still do extensive touring to make profits from the ticket sales and merchandise sales every few years. Its the only way.

At the end of the day we live in a world where people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.... if you want quality in a wargame you have to support the developers by buying the product which will have to be high end priced to return a quality wargame in this limited interested subject.

Cheers

_____________________________


(in reply to zakblood)
Post #: 12
RE: Future of this game - 11/21/2015 11:43:49 AM   
sherlock1

 

Posts: 106
Joined: 7/18/2003
From: new york
Status: offline
I have many of the HPS/JT series games and to this day still enjoy them. To me, there is nothing like them out there. I always wanted a game based on the Island hopping WW2 by the Marines The HPS game is just okay. BOB just gets tiresome quickly due to the battles selected.

(in reply to Recognition)
Post #: 13
RE: Future of this game - 11/22/2015 2:47:59 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
Thanks for all your comments. It's our hope that if we can get two large battles out in 2016 that will bring in enough new players that it will be easier to work on future releases (with multiple battles each), and perhaps a modding community will develop. WCS decided to make highly vast, detailed maps and OOBs knowing that this would mean fewer battles overall, but did so with faith that if we produced an excellent product then enough modders would come along to cover some of the battles that we did not ourselves have the time to make. Since I'm the only one creating OOB's and sketching out the maps for our artist to make, and I have a real job there is an obvious choke point that limits our ability to produce a large number of battles AND maintain our high standards.


(in reply to sherlock1)
Post #: 14
RE: Future of this game - 11/22/2015 1:47:14 PM   
kennonlightfoot

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline
Right now modding is limited to existing maps which means modders can only create alternate scenarios. I would really be hard pressed to find a situation in the current game that your existing scenarios didn't cover. To cover battles other than what BaB doesn't would require access to the map editors.

_____________________________

Kennon

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 15
RE: Future of this game - 11/22/2015 5:59:04 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kwhitehead

Right now modding is limited to existing maps which means modders can only create alternate scenarios. I would really be hard pressed to find a situation in the current game that your existing scenarios didn't cover. To cover battles other than what BaB doesn't would require access to the map editors.


Sure. But perhaps at some point there will appear a modder (or modders?) with sufficient graphics skills to make a map. Sadly, that requires knowing more than just how to use Paint.

(in reply to kennonlightfoot)
Post #: 16
RE: Future of this game - 11/24/2015 11:40:55 AM   
Recognition


Posts: 186
Joined: 2/24/2002
From: A Brit in Holland / UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kwhitehead

Right now modding is limited to existing maps which means modders can only create alternate scenarios. I would really be hard pressed to find a situation in the current game that your existing scenarios didn't cover. To cover battles other than what BaB doesn't would require access to the map editors.


Sure. But perhaps at some point there will appear a modder (or modders?) with sufficient graphics skills to make a map. Sadly, that requires knowing more than just how to use Paint.



Many people are keen I think, maybe those with skills can share to get the ball rolling..

_____________________________


(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 17
RE: Future of this game - 11/24/2015 3:33:42 PM   
kennonlightfoot

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline
Also requires an editor capable of linking map data (terrain factors) to the hex layout on the graphics. Right now you can edit the map graphics but you can't define things like roads and terrain types.

< Message edited by kwhitehead -- 11/24/2015 4:34:36 PM >


_____________________________

Kennon

(in reply to Recognition)
Post #: 18
RE: Future of this game - 12/27/2015 12:34:19 AM   
Rosseau

 

Posts: 2347
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline
I bought your game during the slow season, but have a hard time coming back to it. After paying $50, don't you think I want to come back to it? I thought you had a team working on this game, not one or two guys part time. The one/two guy games have a bad track record and there are a good number here at Matrix that are dead.

If you can't release a new (free) scenario or utility of some sort to get out in the limelight again, it doesn't look good for you or me.

(in reply to kennonlightfoot)
Post #: 19
RE: Future of this game - 12/27/2015 2:03:47 AM   
Delaware

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 8/6/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rosseau

I bought your game during the slow season, but have a hard time coming back to it. After paying $50, don't you think I want to come back to it? I thought you had a team working on this game, not one or two guys part time. The one/two guy games have a bad track record and there are a good number here at Matrix that are dead.

If you can't release a new (free) scenario or utility of some sort to get out in the limelight again, it doesn't look good for you or me.


Or me.... Was curious but my money could be more efficiently spent elsewhere. Perhaps if you dropped the price, it might be enough to get some curious people to take a gamble, but not at full price. Best of luck to you.

(in reply to Rosseau)
Post #: 20
RE: Future of this game - 12/27/2015 3:32:44 PM   
dpt24

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 4/24/2014
Status: offline
I have very mixed feelings about this game. I just bought it a few days ago and have finished 4 battles (Blackburns Ford, Bull Run, Mill Spring, Wilson Creek) with my only win coming at Wilson Creek as the Union in the single attack column scenario. Civil War Generals 2 is the main reason I play war-games today, and my copy won't work on modern computers, thus I bought this game.

I enjoy this game for the most part, but I think in the quest for "realism" they may have gone over the line and prevented the game from being enjoyable. For the record, I've played Flashpoint Campaigns, Combat Mission Black Sea, and various AGEOD games, so I have experienced activation rules and non-player controlled firing. I find having to change the formation of both the brigade and regiments to be annoying, especially since changing brigade formation often wipes out your movement points, and can be a real problem if half your brigade is in combat and the other half is still marching to the field. I also dislike the activation and mis-interpretation rules. I get that those are to make the game more "realistic" and I think one of the rules might be fine, but I absolutely hated playing with the division activation failure after the turn. I think pre-turn division failure or regiments mis-interpreting the rules could work, but not both.

The biggest example of what I found frustrating was the attempt to move across Stone Bridge at Bull Run. Yes, Stone Bridge in real life was a challenge, but the inability of my forces to get across in the game was ridiculous. Flanking across the river was possible, but it involved units going out of command, multiple regiment and brigade changes, and then my regiments bottled up at the bridge when moving in march formation so that most of them never got to the main battle at Henry Hill. Realistic? Maybe. An enjoyable game experience? NO!

The biggest problem with the game is lack of battles. I hope you (the developers) did not spend too much time or too many resources on Mill Spring and Williamsburg! I understand that it may not be economically feasible to do what CWG2 did, and have most of the battles of the war in one game, but if you are only going to have 4 battlefields, maybe do Bull Run, Wilson Creek (which I appreciated playing), Shiloh, and Seven Pines instead? As the game grows, and more add ons are made available, hopefully a full campaign mode is released. I like the alternate scenarios, but I have to agree with the above poster, for 50 bucks I'd at least want Shiloh and Seven Pines on top of Bull Run and Wilson. I also must say that the main reason I did not buy the game until the last week was because of the lack of battles; I finally bought it mostly because it's the best option in full battle (no Scourge of War) Civil War game at the moment.

Speaking of more battles, I do wonder how this system will work on the larger battles. I find it hard to imagine playing Gettysburg with regimental and battalion control. It might be worth play-testing those battles with brigades instead of regiments. I also think this game engine would be great for an American Revolution tactical game, and I think that's an untapped market, with only HexWar and Tiller there.

However, there were a lot of things I liked about the game. For the most part, I was impressed with the AI. They seemed to hold a lot of troops in reserve, but it seemed to work out okay for the AI. The smoke feature is really interesting, and I liked the fact units fire at a distance, rather than having to move them into each other to attack (RE: Civil War Generals 2.) I really have enjoyed this game, and will most likely buy the expansions, but I think reducing the frustration and creating more battles that people care about will be the fastest way to grow the player base and get more buyers.

(in reply to Delaware)
Post #: 21
RE: Future of this game - 12/28/2015 1:34:56 PM   
kennonlightfoot

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline
dpt24, I think some of you problems are just unfamiliarity with the game system. Unfortunately, it doesn't come with much explanation of what is happening. For example, the possible loss of all movement if you change the Brigade's orders. Just never make the orders change until after you have moved as many of it's regiments as you can at least partially and need the new order to close with the enemy. Then give the order and finish your move.

Actually I think this game system will shine when it is applied to the larger battles. One of the problems with previous games' attempt to handle battles like Gettysburg is the all knowing 70 Foot General. This system throw uncertainty into the mix.

But you are right, it needs a lot more battles covered to justify the cost. But I am afraid that is the curse of playing a game type that isn't in general demand. As someone said earlier, having so few people working on the game is a problem but Civil War games don't have the demand that was cause the big game companies to even give them a passing thought.

_____________________________

Kennon

(in reply to dpt24)
Post #: 22
RE: Future of this game - 12/31/2015 6:38:03 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rosseau

I bought your game during the slow season, but have a hard time coming back to it. After paying $50, don't you think I want to come back to it? I thought you had a team working on this game, not one or two guys part time. The one/two guy games have a bad track record and there are a good number here at Matrix that are dead.

If you can't release a new (free) scenario or utility of some sort to get out in the limelight again, it doesn't look good for you or me.



I hear you. Come January we'll be returning to this game -- much later than we'd hoped and planned, but the reasons for delay have all been legitimate. Most of that work will not be visible to the outside world (read: working on BAB#2), but there will indeed be at least one new scenario sometime in the next two or so months.

(in reply to Rosseau)
Post #: 23
RE: Future of this game - 12/31/2015 6:58:56 PM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
dpt24,
Thank you for all your thoughts.

I agree -- not surprisingly -- with kwhitehead, that some of what you wrote may be more related to the learning curve than the game's mechanics, but of course some of it is also a matter of taste. And I agree with him that this game system should work quite well for larger battles.

We will definitely produce more battles, and much bigger battles, with at least one being released around the middle of the year (and, if all goes perfectly, another in time for Christmas, though don't hold me to that!). Those games, of course, will be sold separately and not given away, though. (I mention this so that no one is under the impression that buying BAB#1 means an endless stream of free new battles.)

As for the battles we plan, Shiloh is most certainly on the list, and even was going to be in BAB#2 or BAB#3 until we rethought our business plan for the series. As for Seven Pines, I do not currently plan to make that an official BAB battle mainly because, along with Antietam and Fredericksburg, the nature of the battle itself makes it very difficult to simulate as a game. HOWEVER, if we do the Seven Days Battles as currently planned then I will try to have one of the maps include the Seven Pines area, so that modders can make that battle. Or perhaps we'll do it as a cheap expansion, if I do figure out how to get it to work reasonably well.

Finally, I should add that should you or anyone want to assist in testing BAB#2 you should message me. We will not be adding any new testers for a while, but it would be good for me to have a list of anyone who might wish to be involved, and we especially value having testers with different perspectives.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 24
RE: Future of this game - 1/2/2016 10:22:53 PM   
Rosseau

 

Posts: 2347
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline
Good idea not do Gettysburg for the sake of Gettysburg and picking battles that will work well with your system. I also must remember the little extras that were added, and really enjoyed the PDF articles on the more obscure battles.

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 25
RE: Future of this game - 1/3/2016 8:30:06 AM   
Ironclad

 

Posts: 1917
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline
I think the BAB system, especially when fully refined, will be perfect for Gettysburg and I look forward to that and the other battles for release before then.

(in reply to Rosseau)
Post #: 26
RE: Future of this game - 1/3/2016 3:02:00 PM   
kennonlightfoot

 

Posts: 615
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline
Games like BAB which are Brigade/Regiment based work best on larger battles. Small battles like most of the scenarios in BAB #1 don't have enough units in them. The route or loss of just 2 or 3 regiments can decide the battle simply because they make up such a large percentage of the available force. This makes who wins or loses an almost random thing rather than a skill based result.

Larger battles involving a number of divisions allow the players enough flexibility to control the game and have different outcomes. Battles the size of First Manassas are probably the smallest size scenario that the game is good for. When you drop down to the scale of something like Blackburn Ford scenario you are just pushing pieces around to see if the die rolls favor you. There isn't sufficient force or time to do anything other than the same head on clash every game. I have found most of the scenarios involving less than a Corps fun little historical exercise but after played a couple of times so you know how the flow of the play goes they are put aside and never played again.

The most critical problem that all other games have had with simulating the larger battles like Antietam, Gettysburg, Second Bull Run, etc. has been the 70 Foot General. The games allow the player to coordinate movement on a scale that would have astounded Civil War era generals. Not even battles in the 20th Century with radios to help could match the coordination we achieve on our miniature battlefields. BAB brings in the capacity to limit that coordination and introduce some random events that should make the game work much better than past computer games on these type battles. Only board games with their extensive activation rules have been able to do this before.

_____________________________

Kennon

(in reply to Ironclad)
Post #: 27
RE: Future of this game - 1/3/2016 7:44:41 PM   
Rosseau

 

Posts: 2347
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline
I stand corrected. Maybe Antietam then?

(in reply to kennonlightfoot)
Post #: 28
RE: Future of this game - 1/4/2016 12:08:34 AM   
Gil R.


Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
I dread doing Antietam the most, because the combination of battlefield terrain and history make it the most difficult to get right. Which I blame mainly on McClellan, who held back his forces in ways that neither the A.I. nor human player ever would.

(in reply to Rosseau)
Post #: 29
RE: Future of this game - 1/10/2016 1:58:17 AM   
shoelessbivouac


Posts: 63
Joined: 4/29/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I dread doing Antietam the most, because the combination of battlefield terrain and history make it the most difficult to get right. Which I blame mainly on McClellan, who held back his forces in ways that neither the A.I. nor human player ever would.

Aside from the depressions, ridges, flying corncobs, and the creek, itself - which likely offered far more ford / crossing opportunities than what McClellan or Burnside (who was determined to 'take that bridge') could account for, I wouldn't dismiss this battle - nor give up on simulating General McClellan's slow activation release of his corps, designed to attack in echelon from right to left across the battlefield. Of course, without putting in place historical constraints on the AI Union commander, there simply would be no game to simulate, as Lee's army would be crushed no matter how many replays.

The fact that Lee's army survived Antietam, even as Lee (with Jackson's able assist) pulled off almost as equally near miraculous a tactical victory over Hooker at Chancellorsville, makes a BAB version of The Battle of Antietam a must-have, hence, must-do BAB program design endeavor.

Yes, on the face of it it may appear to be a most daunting, maybe even impossible task for a BAB designer / programmer to pull off, but all the more reason to challenge 'the impossible'; and perhaps all the greater reward(s) for pulling this one off. If nothing else, place it on BAB's bucket list.

< Message edited by shoelessbivouac -- 1/10/2016 7:03:29 PM >


_____________________________

Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they're yours --R. Bach

(in reply to Gil R.)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Brother against Brother: The Drawing of the Sword >> Future of this game Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.164