Page 6 of 6
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of March, 2014
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2016 8:09 am
by Mantzikert
OK. Three Quarters of an impulse in Barbarossa went fine.
The one major thought we have both had is that on a netplay game, save should prompt a save on the other person's computer as well (probably asking a question of the user). That way, it is easier to keep them in sync.
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of March, 2014
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2016 3:57 pm
by Centuur
ORIGINAL: Mantzikert
OK. Three Quarters of an impulse in Barbarossa went fine.
The one major thought we have both had is that on a netplay game, save should prompt a save on the other person's computer as well (probably asking a question of the user). That way, it is easier to keep them in sync.
Steve is going to look into this possibility. Very good suggestion and something we've never thought about. [&o]
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of March, 2014
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 12:17 am
by Shannon V. OKeets
ORIGINAL: Mantzikert
OK. Three Quarters of an impulse in Barbarossa went fine.
The one major thought we have both had is that on a netplay game, save should prompt a save on the other person's computer as well (probably asking a question of the user). That way, it is easier to keep them in sync.
As Peter said, I will start writing this code (Wednesday).
I fixed the 3 remaining NetPlay bugs today and I want to have all saved games when playing NetPlay be performed at the same time on all computers - so there is always a matched set of saved games should the players want to restart at any time. The games would all have the same name except each one would have the local major power abbreviation appended to the save. For example, in a 4 player NetPlay game the GAM files might be named: Impulse 3 Ground Support - Ge, Impulse 3 Ground Support - CW, Impulse 3 Ground Support - Ja, Impulse 3 Ground Support - US. Or something similar.
This is going to be new code (always dangerous), but it shouldn't affect game play, so the chances of it causing new problems is low.
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of March, 2014
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2016 11:35 pm
by Happycat
I suppose it's safe to assume that this project is still a long ways away from offering an AI opponent?
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of March, 2014
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2016 4:09 pm
by rkr1958
ORIGINAL: Happycat
I suppose it's safe to assume that this project is still a long ways away from offering an AI opponent?
Hey Jim! Really nice to see you in this neighborhood. [:)]
Though I don't have a dog in the fight, I'd say you'd be correct in your assumption that an AI opponent is a long way off. Though somebody official couldn't certainly brighten my day if they were to correct me.
RE: IMPORTANT: State of the Game and Future Plans as of March, 2014
Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2016 5:13 am
by Joseignacio
ORIGINAL: Happycat
I suppose it's safe to assume that this project is still a long ways away from offering an AI opponent?
It's not even in the list by now.
I mean, there is a general wish to do it someday, but there are still regular bugs, plus bugs specific of netplay and others, so the developer hasn't even given a tentative date planified to start with it. Which is a responsible thing of him, I must say, cause having the game ok should be the first priority instead of what was not in the original game project and was publicized as a possible future add-on or new version.
It means it is year/years away, I understand.