Email games

[toddtreadway]

I've finished the campaign and the two follow on battles.

Unfortunately, getting a TCP/IP game set up seems to be tough. (No technical difficulty, just a lack of players.)

I really think an email option would give the game some long-term legs. It would not require more than three file swaps per turn and is something that would likely be used by more people than the TCP/IP game.

BTW, in most games I wouldn't care a hoot about replayability. This is such a good game though, that I'd really like the ability to play against other people to extend the fun. TCP/IP just doesn't do it for me.

Any other supporters of this?

[DIEMAN]

I wouldn't mind seeing an e-mail option for playing TS:ATG either... but I have had no problems finding opponents for IP matches, and have taken part in some fantastic battles. The intensity of gameplay and strategic depth of Tin Soldiers really elevates in a multiplayer game. If you are looking for a battle, feel free to challenge me anytime! (But don't expect any mercy!)[8D]

[toddtreadway]

Where/how have you found opponents?

[DIEMAN]

In the TS:ATG forums there is a thread called OPPONENTS WANTED. Admittedly, there are not that many players posting there quite yet... but I just went ahead and put out an open challenge to the world, and since then I have been averaging about 2 IP matches a week. Feel free to e-mail me anytime and we can set up a time to battle. Good luck!


DIEMAN
jchristiansen@koiosworks.com

[2gaulle]

koiosworks.com

look like you are judge and partie[:-]. I feel exactly like toddtreadway. Not realy the problem to find opponents but more a timing problem.

with pbem you are free to play when you want with TCP/IP you must made an appointment. not the same phylosophie

[Deride]

ORIGINAL: 2gaulle
look like you are judge and partie[:-]. I feel exactly like toddtreadway. Not realy the problem to find opponents but more a timing problem.

with pbem you are free to play when you want with TCP/IP you must made an appointment. not the same phylosophie

2gaulle,

We do not intend to make any of our customers feel that way. We did not uniltaerally make the decision to not implement PBEM. We worked with numerous excellent alpha and beta testers. We also had a few discussions with Matrix. In the end, we all felt that PBEM would be more of a frustrating experience with the game than it would be worth to focus on implementing it.

Again, we are open to adding this capability in if we hear from a large group of customers that would like it. We have heard that, at least, a few would prefer it. If anyone else reading this thread has an opinion, please let us know.

Deride

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

A PBEM turn will require three phases to be mailed to be completed, it reminds me the old battleground games, not a very pleasant experience. In order to implement PBEM there should be a single phase per turn, a very different game, however I think it is worth the try for next game

[toddtreadway]

Or, instead of having just one phase per turn or all three phases per turn, maybe an option to play either way.

It seems like email implementation of this game could be as follows:

1) Player 1 does the command phase. Emails to Player 2.
2) Player 2 does the command phase. The computer resolves the command phase but does not show the results to Player 2. PLayer 2 then Emails to Player 1.
3) Player 1 watches the resolution of the command phase and then inputs the reaction phase orders, and so on.

A simple security code would be used to make sure the opponents did not have access to each other's files.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Deride


We do not intend to make any of our customers feel that way. We did not uniltaerally make the decision to not implement PBEM. We worked with numerous excellent alpha and beta testers. We also had a few discussions with Matrix. In the end, we all felt that PBEM would be more of a frustrating experience with the game than it would be worth to focus on implementing it.

Again, we are open to adding this capability in if we hear from a large group of customers that would like it. We have heard that, at least, a few would prefer it. If anyone else reading this thread has an opinion, please let us know.

The response among (certainly the last intake) of testers on PBEM was a "yes, good idea"... until we tried internet play. After that, nobody was particularly bothered as Tin Soldiers obviously so much better suited to that. Whether a regular multiplay community will evolve, I don't know, but if it does I really can't see it being based around PBEM.

That said, if enough say they want it it Koios will not doubt provide it in the next game, but TCP/IP is the way this series should be multiplayed IMHO.

[toddtreadway]

Well, though I'd love to play TCP/IP also, its main problem is getting the two players together at the same time.

Online matchmaking services make that easier, by giving a realtime waiting room. Otherwise you're pretty much left to your own devices.

PBEM is a good alternative, because it can be done when you want to and does not force two people to be playing at the same time. Even better, allow games to be switched between PBEM and TCP/IP.