Matrix Games To Publish Supremacy: Four Paths To Power!

[David Heath]

Matrix Games To Publish Supremacy: Four Paths To Power!
New Turn Based Sci-Fi Strategy Game from Black Hammer Game, Inc.

Staten Island, NY, November 15th, 2004 - Matrix Games (www.matrixgames.com) is pleased to announce that it has secured the rights to publish Black Hammer Game’s (www.blackhammergame.com) new turn-based sci-fi strategy game, Supremacy: Four Paths To Power (www.supremacygame.com), which is scheduled for release in December, 2004.


Supremacy: Four Paths To Power is the ultimate test of survival for sci-fi strategists. Begin with a planet, a ship and a plan. The galaxy is stretched out before you, but you are not alone. The path to Supremacy is a puzzle with many pieces, from espionage and economic growth to planetary invasions and fleet battles. Play as one of four unique commanders, each with distinctive starships, ground units, abilities and strategies.


David Heath, Director of Operations at Matrix Games, said “We’re excited to be able to bring Supremacy: Four Paths To Power to our customers. We believe it’s a real strategy gamer’s title, where every choice involves a trade-off and every challenge has several possible solutions. Different play styles are rewarded, but in the end you have to conquer to succeed and in the area of combat, Supremacy really shines.”


Supremacy: Four Paths To Power is designed to allow you to have total control over your campaign. The composition of your fleets and ground forces and the improvement of your worlds is up to you. Guard your supply lines, scout enemy territory and attack before you are attacked. Plan carefully or you will face defeat. A variety of galactic maps and customizable play options also offer tactical variety and replayability.


Matthew Schlanger of Black Hammer Game, Inc. commented, “We’re very pleased to be on board with Matrix Games, they are becoming one of the most successful strategy-oriented publisher in the market. We feel that Supremacy: Four Paths To Power will fit right in with the existing Matrix Games strategy and science fiction line and we look forward to meeting the Matrix Games community.”


Combat resolution in Supremacy: Four Paths To Power is turn-based. Combat happens both in space, where over a dozen unique ships attack and defend with a number of special attacks and upgrades, and on the ground, where armies clash using gigantic mechs, flamethrowers, suicide bombers and more. Fight against another human or against a finely tuned adaptive AI opponent.


Although there are many paths you can choose, only one will lead to Supremacy!


List of Features

4 unique storylines for each individual race
Combat is fought in space and on planetary surfaces
45 unique units, including suicide bombers, flamethrowers and massive mechs
Adaptive AI that will continually challenge your strategies
Unique resource management and economic system
Robust multiplayer allows you to find and challenge others
Customize the game to better suit your preferences
Multiple tactical approaches to each battle keeps combat fresh
Ruthless AI controlled Space Pirates may hinder your plans
Extensive in-game help makes Supremacy easy to learn (but difficult to master)

For more information, please visit the Supremacy: Four Paths To Power website at www.supremacygame.com and the Matrix Games website at www.matrixgames.com for future press releases and forum discussions.

[siRkid]

At last! I I truly hope it is completly turn based. Would love to see an AAR.

[Brady]

Interesting........

[K. Thor Jensen]

Kid: the game is COMPLETELY turn-based, yes. We really pushed ourselves to make a game that could be played as fast or as slow as the player wanted - the pacing of battles can be very tense and exciting. There is also the option to incorporate timed turns.

[dpstafford]

ORIGINAL: Kid

At last! I I truly hope it is completely turn based. Would love to see an AAR.

It doesn't appear to have PBEM support. So I would guess that it is NOT "completely" turn-based. And thus not worth CD it's burned on, IMO.

[tanker4145]

Sounds cool to me! I love a good turn based space wargame. Tell me more!

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: dpstafford

It doesn't appear to have PBEM support. So I would guess that it is NOT "completely" turn-based. And thus not worth CD it's burned on, IMO.

What is "completely" turn-based? Because plenty of traditional turn-based games would not work all that well for PBEM. Heck even with Squad Leader you have Defensive Fire during movement etc. Sure you could go with multiple e-mails per turn or something but in most cases games made with PBEM in mind are going to make design sacrifices to better support such play. Those same decisions will cost Network-Based and Regular A.I. based play!

And even if they didn't the simple fact is that PBEM necessitates the simplest of game turn structures. Which causes in many cases a lack of game inguinity and so forth.

So I can respect a developer who "Leaves out PBEM". It doesn't necessarily represent laziness or lack of talent/money/time/resources etc. but perhaps simply a choice not to sacrifice other important elements of the game in order to achive PBEM "compatibility".

Pretty much fact though I am still struggling with this very topic in my games. To PBEM or not to PBEM.... [:)]

[dpstafford]

ORIGINAL: Veldor
What is "completely" turn-based? Because plenty of traditional turn-based games would not work all that well for PBEM. Heck even with Squad Leader you have Defensive Fire during movement etc. Sure you could go with multiple e-mails per turn or something but in most cases games made with PBEM in mind are going to make design sacrifices to better support such play. Those same decisions will cost Network-Based and Regular A.I. based play!

And even if they didn't the simple fact is that PBEM necessitates the simplest of game turn structures. Which causes in many cases a lack of game inguinity and so forth.

So I can respect a developer who "Leaves out PBEM". It doesn't necessarily represent laziness or lack of talent/money/time/resources etc. but perhaps simply a choice not to sacrifice other important elements of the game in order to achive PBEM "compatibility".

All good points, but here is my super simplified vision.

1) It is not practical for adults to multi-play in real time. PBEM is the best way for us.

2) If you are leaving out PBEM, you are leaving the realm of the smaller market "Matrix" type games. And are going head-to-head with mass-marketed games. Games by companies whose resources you can't really compete with.

3) For me, sacrifice of some game-play features for PBEM is almost always worth it. The exception would be a game for which solo play is really exceptional. If you want MY gaming dollar you have to provide EXCEPTIONAL AI, or PBEM. Between the two, PBEM is a LOT easier to code and deliver.

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: dpstafford
1) It is not practical for adults to multi-play in real time. PBEM is the best way for us.

Well doesn't that really depend on the length of the game? No one would suggest network-based play as the way to go for WITP. But for games that are somewhat quicker. Plus lets assume you could still "save" your network-based game in progress, which is admitably seldom the case, but assuming you could you wouldnt necessarily have to "give up" the game you are playing cuz the wife was b$tch$ng at you. [:)]

2) If you are leaving out PBEM, you are leaving the realm of the smaller market "Matrix" type games. And are going head-to-head with mass-marketed games. Games by companies whose resources you can't really compete with.

A good point but then again the "mass-marketed games" aren't turn-based at all. Well not for the most part anyway. So not really in competition with them then.

3) For me, sacrifice of some game-play features for PBEM is almost always worth it. The exception would be a game for which solo play is really exceptional. If you want MY gaming dollar you have to provide EXCEPTIONAL AI, or PBEM. Between the two, PBEM is a LOT easier to code and deliver.

Agreed. I still feel EXCEPTIONAL AI's is what most wargamers really want regardless of where they fall with PBEM vs Network-Based Play. I suppose even a game that is designed around Network-Based Play could still do a PBEM mode if they changed the rules/simplified things a bit. Sort of like having a BASIC RULES and ADVANCED RULES set. Or else Optional Rules for the stuff that wouldn't work with PBEM.

Either way the Strategy First crowd is A LOT different than the Matrix crowd. I doubt anyone on either "side" would even bother to debate that. That said I actually hope this title was booted by SF because it wasn't enough "Strategy First like"... which in essense means its more "Matrix-like".

Course the other possibility is no Matrix fans buy it but instead a bunch of SF fans are attracted here instead and are "swayed" to the Matrix ways and Matrix wins a whole set of new loyal customers.

Only time will tell...

[K. Thor Jensen]

I'd be curious if you could go into more detail as to what you think the difference between the Matrix audience and the SF audience is. From our perspective, we're trying to make the best strategy game possible for the general strategy audience, but thanks so much for making your concerns known. PBEM was one thing that we discussed in our inital game design meetings but as the game developed was eventually discarded. I'm sorry if that's a dealbreaker for anyone but que sera, sera.

Oh, and our AI rules. I've been playing the game for almost a year now and it still figures out ways to kick my ass sometimes.

[K. Thor Jensen]

Oh and also, we weren't "booted" by Strategy First - other way around...

[jeffery88]

PBEM is a way to keep the game alive , no matter how strong the Al , nothing can be more FUN then to play against human player ..

But sometimes it is not possible to have PBEM and the same time a great game play just like Tin Soldier Alexander....

I hope that something can be done here ...trust me with PBEM , the game will be still alive after few years ...

But one thing for sure ..I will definitely get this game [:)][:)]

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: K. Thor Jensen

I'd be curious if you could go into more detail as to what you think the difference between the Matrix audience and the SF audience is. From our perspective, we're trying to make the best strategy game possible for the general strategy audience, but thanks so much for making your concerns known. PBEM was one thing that we discussed in our inital game design meetings but as the game developed was eventually discarded. I'm sorry if that's a dealbreaker for anyone but que sera, sera.

Oh, and our AI rules. I've been playing the game for almost a year now and it still figures out ways to kick my ass sometimes.

Don't take my word for it but in my opinion from watching these forums for several years now is:

Matrix=Turn Based Fanatics who more often than not strongly disfavor RTS games. A Big Plus here for your game.
Matrix=Half Super Hardcore Grognard Wargamers many of whom would rather spend endless hours debating whether a machine gun known to be lying on an Aircraft Carriers deck should contribute to its AA value. (ie. They don't play "Games" they play "Historical Simulations".) A Big Minus for any Sci-Fi/Fantasy game in this sub-group.
Matrix=Many believe PBEM is king, Network Play is for the Kiddies. I think partially because age group here is much older on avg.
Matrix=Though many will debate it we would all still mostly rather play the games by ourselves via A.I. See age group comment again.
Matrix=More "Wargamers" in general than "Strategy" gamers.
Matrix=Above average number think games like Hearts of Iron, Sudden Strike, etc are crap.

But then again thats mainly based on what I see in the forums which doesnt necessarily represent anything but those that like to scream the loudest.

From my perspective I like ALL kinds of styles of games. But if a Sci-Fi game is going to be turn-based, then it shouldn't just be a turn-based version of what could have been an RTS game. It should have all of the elements that couldn't work well in an RTS version. Like logistical concerns, Supply, Command & Control or other more "wargame-like" things. Micro-Management that you could never do in the clickfest that is any RTS game by design.

Tin Soldiers I guess is an example of a game where its cool design couldn't permit PBEM play (don't know for sure as I haven't bought it yet). But that would illustrate the point I was making. I personally vote no PBEM at all if I can get a better more interesting style of game play without it (and thus a new experience and not another "re-hash". And even the PBEM'rs will probably cave in if the A.I. is really good since both methods of play sort of address the same concern (lack of continuous blocks of time to play).

All of the above just my own observations/opinions and as equally useful or as worthless as anyone elses...

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: K. Thor Jensen

Oh and also, we weren't "booted" by Strategy First - other way around...

Yeah. Well while being "booted" from Electronic Arts or equivelant could probably only be seen as a bad thing.. I think many would probably see being "booted" by Strategy First as a good thing. I mean if you went to Strategy First with just about ANY of the Matrix titles I'd think they would kick you right out the door.

So why did you "boot them"?

I suppose my info could be dated. I haven't followed their line in some time but back when I did they didn't have much that was turn-based or "truly" wargame-like at all. Not that there is anything wrong with that.. They just make a "differnet" kind of game than Matrix Games on average.

And they get really bad press at places like Wargamer.Com lately where even some of the reviewers themselves have accused Strategy First of very bad PR and cutting any reviewing off from further "sample copies" or whatever if they give a bad review.

Don't know if any of that is true but it just doesn't seem to happen like that with Matrix. The only real "Matrix-Bashing" that goes on elsewhere relates to their current pricing increases. I am mixed on that one issue myself but that aside I think Matrix has one of the best reputations of anyone.

[Zdragva]

ORIGINAL: dpstafford


1) It is not practical for adults to multi-play in real time. PBEM is the best way for us.

Im a 20 year old gamer, and the most fun I currently get on a PC is playing Homeworld 2 multiplayer via gamespy. Sure its RTS and not turn based, but I felt a bit p***ed by that comment. I know plenty 'adults' who play in real time, across a vast spectrum of game types. I play Eve Online too, and that has the highest average age of any MMORPG in existance, so I get told by people who have played other mmorpg's anyway, I havnt.
PBEM might be the best for you, not 'us'. Infact since I started playing games online in real time about 12-18 months ago iv not really played many games that dont support online real time playing.

ORIGINAL: dpstafford


2) If you are leaving out PBEM, you are leaving the realm of the smaller market "Matrix" type games. And are going head-to-head with mass-marketed games. Games by companies whose resources you can't really compete with.

I found this website, and these forums because I went back to play 'Starships Unlimited Divided Galaxies' and it dropped to desktop after 2 hours so I went looking for a patch.
Id never heard of Matrix untill i picked up this game, I was looking for some kind of sci-fi space strategy sim (my favorite kind of game) and this was cheap and seemed to offer what I was looking for. It looks crap, but the gameplay makes me enjoy it, and im looking for other titles similar to it or by Matrix atleast because theyve won my respect.
It doesnt matter who they compete with imo, I know for a fact that EA dont know how to develop a game, they can make smart visual effects etc. and certainly know how to present a game. But they dont have a clue about making games that are fun to play. Its pretty obvious to me that no one in EA ever owned a home gaming system before the mid 1990's Basiclly what im saying is that big companies might outsell smaller companies just because of their marketing department but real games cant be competed with, only enjoyed, and added to a gamers collection. Dont try and compete Matrix, just keep making fun games.

ORIGINAL: dpstafford


3) For me, sacrifice of some game-play features for PBEM is almost always worth it. The exception would be a game for which solo play is really exceptional. If you want MY gaming dollar you have to provide EXCEPTIONAL AI, or PBEM. Between the two, PBEM is a LOT easier to code and deliver.

Thats your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but I couldnt disagree more. Singeplayer, multiplayer, replayability etc. are all simply different parts of a game. At no point should a game be made that gets altered simply to throw in extra features that arnt related to the actuall game, but might please a few more buyers. How can you admire a game thats been reduced in quality and/or playability simply to encourage more buyers? I think your opinion in point 3 forgets what you stated in point 2. Dont wreck a game trying to gain more customers.

Ill be blunt, if you cant make time in your 'adult' life to satisfy your own needs, be it because a spouse thinks it childish or work commitments then thats not something the developers need to think about when trying to release a quality and inspiring title. Tell your husband/wife that youd like to unwind on a Saturday/Sunday, whenever, by doing what you enjoy, and thats pitting your tactical and strategic skills in a friendly game. Id imagine if you went and played chess at a friends house one night a week that wouldnt be an issue, so why not aside a day of your weekend to play in real time? Unless ofcourse you think thats the realm of children only, I tend to beleive online is where youll find a games most diligent disciples.