IMPORTANT NEWS ABOUT MULTIPLAYER

[jzardos]

I hope my negative comments in other posts on some aspects of this game are not taken as a personal attack or the wrong way. I'm trying for constructive criticism to help the game make some improvements in play and play balance over patch. My sincere hopes that Hubert has a speedy recovery . In no way are my criticisms meant to diminish the achievements here with such a tiny development team and aggressive release date. Let's hope the multiplayer patch will be out soon and it will also include some sort of battle report feature. Then work can be done to fix some of the glaring pro allied play balance issues.

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: jzardos

I hope my negative comments in other posts on some aspects of this game are not taken as a personal attack or the wrong way. I'm trying for constructive criticism to help the game make some improvements in play and play balance over patch. My sincere hopes that Hubert has a speedy recovery . In no way are my criticisms meant to diminish the achievements here with such a tiny development team and aggressive release date. Let's hope the multiplayer patch will be out soon and it will also include some sort of battle report feature. Then work can be done to fix some of the glaring pro allied play balance issues.

Well, if not even constructive criticism was confused with improper rowdiness.

I personally think that this game is set in many areas very much in favor of the axis. The winter effect could be extended over the course of several rounds to allow the Russians - at least as a starting point - the possibility of a winter offensive. The Italian attack on Greece could - historically proven - be a self-imposed but equally firm strategic will and not a "then not" decision. Norway is given as a gift and the Afrikakorps landed in excess right on the waveringthe front, where the Allies seem to be overwhelmed by the Italians alone. There would be much more to list.

Also for this opinion there were some advocates in this forum. And yet it has one thing in common with your findings: it is an absolute minority!

The game is designed for a wide majority. This crucial group of players (which in any case confirm the posts in a forum so far written in a moderate tone) is also very well served. For the rest there are adjustable difficulty levels, different bonuses and in the form of the editor also a powerful developer tool. I do not believe the developers or the distributors have forbidden any of us to use them extensively, right?

Yes, the multiplayer is still missing. Give yourself some patience and wait for the updates...[;)]

[jzardos]

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield

ORIGINAL: jzardos

I hope my negative comments in other posts on some aspects of this game are not taken as a personal attack or the wrong way. I'm trying for constructive criticism to help the game make some improvements in play and play balance over patch. My sincere hopes that Hubert has a speedy recovery . In no way are my criticisms meant to diminish the achievements here with such a tiny development team and aggressive release date. Let's hope the multiplayer patch will be out soon and it will also include some sort of battle report feature. Then work can be done to fix some of the glaring pro allied play balance issues.

Well, if not even constructive criticism was confused with improper rowdiness.

I personally think that this game is set in many areas very much in favor of the axis. The winter effect could be extended over the course of several rounds to allow the Russians - at least as a starting point - the possibility of a winter offensive. The Italian attack on Greece could - historically proven - be a self-imposed but equally firm strategic will and not a "then not" decision. Norway is given as a gift and the Afrikakorps landed in excess right on the waveringthe front, where the Allies seem to be overwhelmed by the Italians alone. There would be much more to list.

Also for this opinion there were some advocates in this forum. And yet it has one thing in common with your findings: it is an absolute minority!

The game is designed for a wide majority. This crucial group of players (which in any case confirm the posts in a forum so far written in a moderate tone) is also very well served. For the rest there are adjustable difficulty levels, different bonuses and in the form of the editor also a powerful developer tool. I do not believe the developers or the distributors have forbidden any of us to use them extensively, right?

Yes, the multiplayer is still missing. Give yourself some patience and wait for the updates...[;)]

You're are entitled to your opinion. But, I have to respectively disagree with your thoughts on play balance. It's easy to explain why there's not been a majority of people complaining about the balance. For starters the hard core allied players are less likely to say anything as they would prefer this status either subconsciously or deliberate. Many other players have not yet had the time to play enough to have a firm idea of the imbalances. I'm willing to bet I've played these these types of games longer that most on this forum, including you. My experience in play and testing goes back to the SSI games in the 80's. Most recently, well several years now, I went through this same song and dance with WitE on it's release. Which it was my opinion, with provided documentation, that the Soviets had too many clear and unhistorical advantages. There was much bickering and many pro-Soviets players adamantly refused the idea of an imbalance in the game. It took several months but the developers finally realized there were several issue with the balance and fixed most of them over time with patches. So it doesn't surprise me that many will resist the idea of the game has issues (perfect world peeps) and go along oblivious to it. I refuse to hold my tongue and understand it will take time to get fixed. The game is still very playable, but as axis player, unless playing against a complete noob, you will have a tougher road that the allies for victory.

[TheBattlefield]

Well, unfortunately I have not yet had a relevant multiplayer testversion of this title on the screen. Any discussion of possible unbalances in a multi-player campaign would therefore be speculative. I will not participate in this.

And for the single-player mode, I would really like not to give up my (naturally subjective) impression of a slight prejudice of the Axis powers only because you are propagating a (supposedly objective) converse. However, I have found my salvation in the customization of this game. I am glad that the developers are taking the time not to react to any reflex-like balancing criticism. In this way, actual irregularities can be rectified without overloading the game or create unintended domino effects which (legitimately) still produce louder shouting in the forum. In addition, many players have in the meantime still found the multi-integrated switches for personal fine adjustment and recognized that - even with decades of experience with strategic games - is no shame to use them. [8D]

[Dmondragon75]

Any news? AI is sooo boring

[Hubert Cater]

Hi everyone, just wanted to pop back in and say that I am indeed back and catching up and working diligently on getting Multiplayer up and running. The pneumonia really did do a number on me but as mentioned in the recent Grognards interview I do indeed feel back to my normal self which has truly been great on my end.

Thanks again for all the well wishes and hopefully we'll have something for you all soon enough

[Happycat]

Glad you're feeling better Hubert. Pace yourself; don't over-do it!

Best wishes

[zakblood]

also glad to hear you are feeling better, game will be ready when it's ready, time really doesn't matter, where health does in the long run, so look after yourself, and read the forums less regarding the negative or not so nice posts, few in numbers, but still not nice at this time all the same in my opinion[:@]

[Happycat]

ORIGINAL: zakblood

... and read the forums less regarding the negative or not so nice posts, few in numbers, but still not nice at this time all the same in my opinion[:@]

[:)]

[zakblood]

[tarfman]

Have never used the pbem++ method before. Will there still be the method available to play normal pbem? I often don't have access to Internet on the laptop I play from and sometimes download a turn onto a USB stick or to my phone.

[CapnDarwin]

tarfman, I know from our work we had to have additional code and UI to handle a standard PBEM function to save and load turns. May be a bit more than he can kick out on this first patch/addition. Have to wait and see.

[tarfman]

Thanks for the info CAPT. Darwin. Happy to wait and see.

[HappyHedonist]

I have already got so much playtime from this game and am really looking forward to the multiplayer. I'm glad you're feeling better Hubert, thanks for the fantastic game.

[FriendlyKomissar]

Nice to see that multiplayer will soon be available - much looking forward to it as a 'die hard' sc fan.

If anyone wishes to have a war, feel free to pm me...we can try the 'hotseat' workaround. not the best but... lets face it, we can be impatient.

Also a note for the developer: take as long as you need to, health comes first and foremost. Don't be offended by some cries on here to hurry up, some people are just impatient but don't mean any harm by it.

[Dmondragon75]

I m really keen to play mp, dunno if u got my messages?

[Cyrano]

@Cap'n Darwin, load me up on enough JD and I might not become unhinged re: PBEM++ versus proper MP here too...

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

[OxfordGuy3]

Will the multiplayer functionality prevent abuse, such as player simply reloading a turn if a U-boat runs into a Destroyer or they don't get the combat results they wanted? If not, then it will be prone to cheating, as in other games that don't prevent this, which will make me very sad. I'd rather wait for a system that prevents such abuse than have a hurriedly pushed through MP system that doesn't. At least in the meantime SP is playable in SC3, unlike some other grand strategy games.

[battlevonwar]

Ever play Commander WW1, they run on the same server I assume that Strategic Command will use. I am pretty sure it's difficult to cheat. Also it nicely organizes your games vs the old PBEM style which can be a little bit of a pain in the rear.

ORIGINAL: oxford_guy

Will the multiplayer functionality prevent abuse, such as player simply reloading a turn if a U-boat runs into a Destroyer or they don't get the combat results they wanted? If not, then it will be prone to cheating, as in other games that don't prevent this, which will make me very sad. I'd rather wait for a system that prevents such abuse than have a hurriedly pushed through MP system that doesn't. At least in the meantime SP is playable in SC3, unlike some other grand strategy games.

[OxfordGuy3]

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

Ever play Commander WW1, they run on the same server I assume that Strategic Command will use. I am pretty sure it's difficult to cheat. Also it nicely organizes your games vs the old PBEM style which can be a little bit of a pain in the rear.

ORIGINAL: oxford_guy

Will the multiplayer functionality prevent abuse, such as player simply reloading a turn if a U-boat runs into a Destroyer or they don't get the combat results they wanted? If not, then it will be prone to cheating, as in other games that don't prevent this, which will make me very sad. I'd rather wait for a system that prevents such abuse than have a hurriedly pushed through MP system that doesn't. At least in the meantime SP is playable in SC3, unlike some other grand strategy games.

Hope so!

BTW I only played a little CTGW and only vs the AI