More replay value?

[offbase]

Looking very forward to it's release. ATG was a "good" game, but it needed some improvement, much of which it seems will go into JC. I just finished the game today, and was rather disappointed that all that's left is to replay the same few campaign battles in this abbreviated military history of Alexander. It would've been very nice to have an editor, a random battle generator (preferably both), or perhaps even a "what if" continuation, allowing Al to live and focus his attention Rome. How can you feel more powerful than by stamping out the Roman Empire before it even came into existence? Anyway, kudos on a good game, but please in the future provide a bit more value for the dollar. I just hate when you finish a game (and this completes pretty quickly unless you're as "talented" as Quintus Publius Varus) and have to simply remove it from your drive and store the disk away for posterity, as I've just done. Still, you can count on my spending another 40 bucks on Caesar!

[Warfare1]

As far as I understand it, Caesar will not have PBEM or a scenario editor.

So when you've finished the 14 battles in the game, then that is it...

[Erik Rutins]

Caesar has a lot more replayability than Alexander, even without an editor:

1. 14 battles instead of 6.
2. You don't have to fight all the battles to advance from one portion of the campaign to the next if you are doing well. A few major victories can get you to Alesia and a conclusion of the Gallic Wars faster than a series of minors. Basically "how Gaul was won" is your decision, as is the Civil War.
3. The new mobilization and enlistment system gives you much more control over which forces you have in each battle. Alexander focused on a core force with some additions along the way. Here you decide each battle what the core force is. It's less expensive to re-enlist than to mobilize, but the choice is up to you.

We are aware that a lot of customers wanted Alexander to be longer and less linear, so we made sure to address that in Caesar.

Regards,

- Erik

[ravinhood]

Why no PBEM??? You guys know by now most all of us want a PBEM feature in every game. Now, you're doing all this talk about adding TCP/IP and LAN to GGWAW, why can't you add a PBEM feature to TSCaesar?

[CamelCity]

I'm not convinced that the mechanics of the TS series are all that well suited for PBEM. Don't get me wrong, I like PBEM a lot, when it fits in nicely of the game's structure.

For those of you who want PBEM, how exactly would that work? Something like this?

Player 1 sets Command Orders --> sends email
Player 2 sets Command Orders, Command Phase resolves, sets Reaction Orders --> sends email
Player 1 sets Reaction Orders, Reaction Phase resolves, sets Reserve Orders --> sends email
Player 2 sets Reserve Orders, Reserve Phase resolves --> sends email

Then it starts over for the next turn. So that's 4 emails per turn-- seems like a lot to me per turn. I like the pacing of the phased gameplay, and for me, chopping up the turns so much would take away from the game. But that's just me. [:)]

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: CamelCity

I'm not convinced that the mechanics of the TS series are all that well suited for PBEM.

It isn't well suited to it. Still, I think TCP/IP is a complete waste of time for GGWaW, so what do I know ! [:D]

[Erik Rutins]

Ravinhood,

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
Why no PBEM??? You guys know by now most all of us want a PBEM feature in every game. Now, you're doing all this talk about adding TCP/IP and LAN to GGWAW, why can't you add a PBEM feature to TSCaesar?

Only because we don't have infinite resources and time. PBEM support is on the to-do list for the series, but it came after the host of other improvements included in Julius Caesar.

The fact is, we can't "win" on this issue because few supporters of PBEM or TCP/IP want to hear the game design reasons for not including it. In each project, every feature has to be compared in terms of resources/time to implement vs. benefit gained and compared to the rest of the list for prioritization. PBEM did not make the cut for JC but may show up in a future Tin Soldiers release.

Regards,

- Erik

[SlapBone]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

The fact is, we can't "win" on this issue because few supporters of PBEM or TCP/IP want to hear the game design reasons for not including it.

If it makes you feel any better, I understand perfectly the reason for not having PBEM in this game. As stated above, I also understand why TCP/IP wasn't added to GGaW.

[ravinhood]

Yes I know about resources and time limits and all. But, I can't help but give my 2 cents on what I like in games. Of course TS will sell with or without a PBEM system, but, the one I read above doesn't sound bad to me, 4 sub-turns per turn emails wouldn't bother me, look at how many emails it takes to play a game of WitP if you're comparing "time".

PBEM in games now next to random features is the major plus to my purchases of games nowadays. I don't even care if they have an online multiplay or lan feature, that PBEM has been the best thing for wargaming I've seen in a long time. Brings lots more opponents than I ever had online multiplay and a lot more games going at once.

It's kinda funny, here's a game I woulda paid $50 for (if it of had a PBEM feature), and it's $39.95 without one. lol I was pretty excited about this one at first. But, I'm just not a multiplayer online type of player (dialup and all) and I know as well as everyone else the AI isn't going to be THAT great.

Anyways good luck with the sales and try to attempt to add PBEM to it later if you can. Something else in the "future" of the series may not appeal to my gaming era likes (sick of WWII), I'm a nut right now for Ancients and Medieval type wargames.

[Erik Rutins]

Ravinhood,

The AI is actually among the best in our line-up, in my opinion. I also don't want to give the impression that I have any problem with you asking about PBEM. It's just that I've heard a lot of PBEM/TCPIP requests lately and I don't have much new to say.

I'd like to play TS via PBEM too but if you only have time to implement one multiplayer format, it makes sense to start with the one that is best suited to the system. FWIW, I've played games of this head to head in a couple of hours, easy to do with a friend on any free evening.

Regards,

- Erik

[Cyrano]

O.K...I'll slip in my usual sandbox comment here and briefly remark on the topic at hand.

A: I think a sandbox mode would add significantly more re-play value than PBEM. (I feel rather like Cato insisting Carthage be destroyed, but a man has to stand for something, right? )

B: Everyone to their own, I suppose, but PBEM would not work for me with this one. On the other hand, perhaps a rudimentary lobby of some kind might be supported in a future release? Awful hard to find opponents without one.

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

[Erik Rutins]

We would love a sandbox mode too - there are a number of things that we and Koios would love to see as this series grows. With your continued support, all this should be possible. [8D]

Regards,

- Erik

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: CamelCity

I'm not convinced that the mechanics of the TS series are all that well suited for PBEM.

It isn't well suited to it. Still, I think TCP/IP is a complete waste of time for GGWaW, so what do I know ! [:D]

Not much in that regard... [;)]

[galaril]

How long of a game is this? Since it doesn't have much replay value with no sandbox skirmish mode, I am wondering if you can go through this game in a few weeks. I am curious as to how long one of the battles might take to complete on average for a low to average player. Thanks.