Important changes

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader
...WW2:RtV is not a totally historical simulation of World War 2. I think that the best description would be Casual Grand Strategy Game focused for land combat. We know and I think that some of you already know that it is not a game where you simulate or replay history. It’s rather a game where you can play a war.

That's all I expected and all I got. Thank you.

ORIGINAL: doomtrader
Anyway, I would like to thank you for helping make this game better.

And thank you for providing my evenings entertainment of late. [:D]

[winky51]

Doomtrader, make a good editor for the game.  This will resolve most of your problems.  All this research your guys are doing to make a more historical feel for the game can be better spent making an editor.  Let us make the sceanrios.  Ive done it for SC2 and CEAW.  What I recommended is a function of the game, mostly naval.

[SeaMonkey]

What W51 just alluded to is probably the most important and most difficult aspect of a WW2 strategic simulation to get right.

Now I know you said you were concentrating on land combat, but eventually if you wish to incorporate what is learned from the public beta of RTV into Bitter Glory then you will need to expand into the area of air/naval interaction.

I would suggest that you should start working on those mechanics right away.  What the users want is a realistic set of features to design with.  You can provide a base set of scenarios with the game as an example, but it is the users that will use a well interfaced editor to create scenarios that will make or break your entry into this genre.

I'll hold TOAW up as an example.  Another .....PzGeneral...... and of course SC.  AT is on the right track, so is the AA series.  Combined Arms will fit the bill.........you get my drift!

[James Ward]

There are many WWII games with really good land and air systems. There are few, if any, with good land, air and naval systems that cover the whole war. Most games fail to provide a good naval system because tere are two vastly different aspects of it and they are generally lumped together. I think one could be designed but I don't know if it could be incporporated into this particular game.
In the ETO the main naval war revolved around submarine warfare. In the Pacific it was carriers, surface combat and invasions. The battle for the North Atlantic can actually be abstracted easily in the form of 'effort' placed on sub and anti sub warfare. The respective efforts determine the relative success, in the form of reduced supply/production points/whatever getting through. You could also use this to a degree in the Pacific. The cost of the effort per nation, technological improvements etc would need to be accounted for but overall this part would the naval system should be separated from the other naval aspect.

[Severian]

Now I know you said you were concentrating on land combat, but eventually if you wish to incorporate what is learned from the public beta of RTV into Bitter Glory then you will need to expand into the area of air/naval interaction.

Bitter Glory will be a Grand Strategy game with a lot of micromanagemant (automatisation will be possible). BG is other kind game than RTV. I hobe you'll enjoy BG  when will be ready

I would suggest that you should start working on those mechanics right away.

Hmmm... work is in progress

Most games fail to provide a good naval system

I'm team naval maniac Naval combat will be one of our strong aspects

[mustang96]

Hi
So there is no real naval battles in the game?What are subs used for?Are there convoys to destroy?Does Germany get
shipments from Sweden?
Thanks for any answers.
Mustang

[Severian]

Yes, there are naval battles
Subs can fight against enemy fleets and convoys
Yes, convoys are present in the game
There is no trade in RTV

[SeaMonkey]

Actually JW the "real" ETO naval battles were in the Med.

If you want to get the air/naval/convoy interaction correct all you got to do is get the WW2 Med naval battles down.

The PTO came second, it was from here(Med) the Japs learned how to use their carriers.

[KuniworthII]

New suggestions? I thought most of the guys here had their hands full with crossdressing activities.

Dev team: have some more soup and back to work. Lets see what that polish polish is worth(like how good is the turkey in turkey?)

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

Actually JW the "real" ETO naval battles were in the Med.

If you want to get the air/naval/convoy interaction correct all you got to do is get the WW2 Med naval battles down.

The PTO came second, it was from here(Med) the Japs learned how to use their carriers.

There wasn't a lot of fleet action in the Med compared to the Pacific.
In game terms supply interdiction in the Med would be similiar to the battle of the Atlantic. If you wanted to try to portray surface action in the Med it would most likely be similiar to what you would do it in the Pacific. Most games covering all of WWII suffer because they don't make distinctions between the role of subs in Europe versus surface actions, they try to make a single system do both and it doesn't work well.

[KuniworthII]

Bug:
 
As Germany I defeated all other nations, USA beeing the last. Still the game said that France take over as allied alliance leader despite they beeing completly annexed. SO game doesnt end it just keeps going with no enemy left on the board. How weird is that.

[doomtrader]

Kuni, France should be off from the game. That's weird.
Could you please sent me your save game?

[James Ward]

I've had two games where a nation declares war on a nation that just was eliminated. Once Germany did it to Russia and once Russia did it to Germany. Both times it happened on the turn after the surrender.

[Magpius]

Q: are we playing road to victory, or did we pay $$$ to beta test bitter glory?
[:'(]

[doomtrader]

ORIGINAL: Agent S

Q: are we playing road to victory, or did we pay $$$ to beta test bitter glory?
[:'(]

Bitter Glory is completly different game, engine, design etc.

[Severian]

I suggest to read few things about Bitter Glory on our web site and compare screens. Then you will see great differences [;)]

[JMass]

I don't like rts games, I tried to play HoI and I uninstalled it after some hours so I am sorry but I'll not buy Bitter Glory. I hope to see a better WW2RtS so please work together on this and leave out off topics.
[;)]

[doomtrader]

please work together on this and leave out off topics

good point

[Magpius]

c'mon guys.
just stirring.
I'm really enjoying this game, and wish it all success.
Long time SC1 fan, and hoping this surpasses it.

[Widell]

ORIGINAL: JMass
I don't like rts games, I tried to play HoI and I uninstalled it after some hours so I am sorry but I'll not buy Bitter Glory. I hope to see a better WW2RtS so please work together on this and leave out off topics.
[;)]

I love HoI, and looking at the pictures of BG, it looks like I'll fall in love with that too. However, I would be even more in love with a turn based game of similar type. Not sure if I'd label HoI or BG as RTS though... RTP maybe, but arguing about RTS or RTP is like splitting hair I guess.... [:D]