Hopes for this game

[RobertMc]

Hello Peter, I'll be supporting this game 150 percent...have been waiting for an "ASL"-type computer game for a long time. A few things I hope will be in an expansion--and I'm hoping the game will sell enough to rate an expansion--would be walls, hedges, two-story or larger buildings, ability to set fires (of course!) and something that maybe only I would like...the ability to name your leaders for a more personal touch. Looking forward to the game's release!

[tigercub]

you can play the AI or hotseat thats it!....hot seat and this kind of game a very HOT seat!

Tigercub

[RobertMc]

Fine with me. I only play solo anyway, and I like it that way. Cheers!

[waltero]

ORIGINAL: RobertMc

Fine with me. I only play solo anyway, and I like it that way. Cheers!

That way you never lose[8D]

[Ron]

I don't know, single player and hotseat only for this type of game raises eyebrows. I'm assuming the file exchanges are the obstacle to overcome? Others have solved this so am unsure why not here. More of an odder design choice is the lack of walls, hedges, bocage etc, and assuming again no bypass movement has been modelled? Read that firegroups can only be formed from units within the same hex also which again seems like a really odd restriction. The initial ASL comparison is an attraction but will have to wait and see the tactical game fleshed out more before committing.

[Rosseau]

I do admire the dev's policy of "full disclosure" in these videos. Maybe my memory is bad, but other than static AAR's, many games don't show you exactly what you'll be getting in advance.

Obviously, with all the sub-segments, pbem file transfers would be impractical. Lots of mouse clicking - way more than HPS fare, which allows you to let AI move your units if you get lazy. Looks like some serious work here, unless you're playing the smallest scenarios. Still, I can't pass this one up based on the level of detail, etc. [:)]

[Gerry4321]

The only way to get over file exchanges would be for Matrix to set up a server to play live. Could be you just play an opponent for an hour and finish the next night or you might be able to finish a small scenario in one setting. It would be great. Nothing like PBEM for these tactical wargames. Hope Matrix will look into some avenue for us. As I said before I am not a player that will be happy playing the AI. There is something special about playing a human opponent.

ORIGINAL: Ron

I don't know, single player and hotseat only for this type of game raises eyebrows. I'm assuming the file exchanges are the obstacle to overcome? Others have solved this so am unsure why not here. More of an odder design choice is the lack of walls, hedges, bocage etc, and assuming again no bypass movement has been modelled? Read that firegroups can only be formed from units within the same hex also which again seems like a really odd restriction. The initial ASL comparison is an attraction but will have to wait and see the tactical game fleshed out more before committing.

[IainMcNeil]

We have the PBEM++ system available to all our developers but its not always as easy as it sounds to implement multiplayer so this is entirely down to the game and its design. Sometimes there are technical issues (It could be that it was always assumed one side would be AI controlled) and other times design issues (are there any decisions points in the enemy turn - this prevent PBEM style play).

[Peter Fisla]

ORIGINAL: rosseau
Obviously, with all the sub-segments, pbem file transfers would be impractical. Lots of mouse clicking - way more than HPS fare, which allows you to let AI move your units if you get lazy. Looks like some serious work here, unless you're playing the smallest scenarios. Still, I can't pass this one up based on the level of detail, etc. [:)]

This is the reason why I didn't implement PBEM, too many files to be exchanged between players because of the nature of the game design. The way the defending player can respond with defensive fire against an enemy unit moving, it just makes it very impractical. Note that there is a way around this by simply sending the saved game file between players so the game does in a way indirectly supports PBEM.

[harry_vdk]

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

ORIGINAL: rosseau
Obviously, with all the sub-segments, pbem file transfers would be impractical. Lots of mouse clicking - way more than HPS fare, which allows you to let AI move your units if you get lazy. Looks like some serious work here, unless you're playing the smallest scenarios. Still, I can't pass this one up based on the level of detail, etc. [:)]

This is the reason why I didn't implement PBEM, too many files to be exchanged between players because of the nature of the game design. The way the defending player can respond with defensive fire against an enemy unit moving, it just makes it very impractical. Note that there is a way around this by simply sending the saved game file between players so the game does in a way indirectly supports PBEM.

Peter,

Perhaps you can use BitTorrent Sync as a tool for sending/sync the files.

There is a API for setup a folder structure and I think the responds is sufficient. And easier to implement.

Harry

[Peter Fisla]

ORIGINAL: harry_vdk

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

ORIGINAL: rosseau
Obviously, with all the sub-segments, pbem file transfers would be impractical. Lots of mouse clicking - way more than HPS fare, which allows you to let AI move your units if you get lazy. Looks like some serious work here, unless you're playing the smallest scenarios. Still, I can't pass this one up based on the level of detail, etc. [:)]

This is the reason why I didn't implement PBEM, too many files to be exchanged between players because of the nature of the game design. The way the defending player can respond with defensive fire against an enemy unit moving, it just makes it very impractical. Note that there is a way around this by simply sending the saved game file between players so the game does in a way indirectly supports PBEM.

Peter,

Perhaps you can use BitTorrent Sync as a tool for sending/sync the files.

There is a API for setup a folder structure and I think the responds is sufficient. And easier to implement.

Harry

It's not the technology that's the challenge, it's the nature of the game that makes it difficult to implement PBEM.

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: RobertMc

Fine with me. I only play solo anyway, and I like it that way. Cheers!

Me too. Too many games ruined by PBEM and multiplayer anyways I think.

[waltero]

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

ORIGINAL: RobertMc

Fine with me. I only play solo anyway, and I like it that way. Cheers!

Me too. Too many games ruined by PBEM and multiplayer anyways I think.

Why would a game lose its flavor by allowing multiplayer compatibility?
You will always have the AI...regardless.

[pad152]

If you watch the play video, there are interrupts/opportunity fire that happens during the enemy movement phase, you can't do interactive opportunity fire with PBM files.

[Gerry4321]

I realize this is the way the game is set up. But ASL is the same and they have a VASL Server that can be used to play live or by PBEM. In live play as the opponent moves a unit one hex you say "k" for them to keep moving (like you do by pressing the button here) or you fire on them. The server system would have to be created to tie in with the game I realize.

[Paullus]

The VASL PBEM isn't good, it is just okay. You would still have to send the file after every move or come up with a houserule.

[Gerry4321]

Jorgen, you don't have to with live play. Yes, with PBEM.

[waltero]

ORIGINAL: Paullus

The VASL PBEM isn't good, it is just okay. You would still have to send the file after every move or come up with a houserule.

I would gladly settle for "Just OK" oppose to nothing.
Defensive Firer could be preset to fire on predesignated target hex?
Auto-set might have to include some random behavior...that's OK!

If it wasn't for hot seat I wouldn't even bother with this game.
Thank god for hot seat.

Are you really that hopeless in trying to develop and advance the multi-player game

[Ron]

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

This is the reason why I didn't implement PBEM, too many files to be exchanged between players because of the nature of the game design. The way the defending player can respond with defensive fire against an enemy unit moving, it just makes it very impractical. Note that there is a way around this by simply sending the saved game file between players so the game does in a way indirectly supports PBEM.

Why not a form of automation - SOPs to name one? This isn't the first time this has come up and others have "solved" it. Smacks of poor design to me.[&:]

[tigercub]

this game is not going to work PBEM way to slow.

But multi-player game is what is badly needed.
broke my hart when i saw only Hotseat!