Sack of Questions

[TheGrayMouser]

Hello! Couple of questions:

1) from the screenies it appears fog of war is implemented(ie hidden movement etc) is it so?

2) are heavy artillery and air strikes implemented in any way (whether on board ,off board , no board )

3) MP : will it be using Slithertrix's unique system?

4) for scenario design, is there any unit cap? ie could I theoretically have 300+ squads on a side?

4) specs: this is my big concern as the required specs, especially graphics card wise seem kinda high for a turn based game and taxing to my aged PC
I have a Nvidia 7600 gs 512mp card... Unfortunately i doudt Im getting full performance as I have , embarrassingly , only an AGP slotted mother board. Hopefully the the 2d mode will be easily handled by my old, yet faithfull dog of a PC??

This looks like a great game and I cant wait to get my greedy hands on it.

Cheers!

[Gil R.]

Here are some answers; more to follow:

ORIGINAL: The Gray Mouser

Hello! Couple of questions:

1) from the screenies it appears fog of war is implemented(ie hidden movement etc) is it so?

We've got both fog of war -- to quote the manual, "If fog-of-war is turned on, players cannot see hexes that are outside of the line-of-sight of their units" -- and the boardgame's system for hidden units.

2) are heavy artillery and air strikes implemented in any way (whether on board ,off board , no board )

Yes.

3) MP : will it be using Slithertrix's unique system?

Yes. Implementing it was a major factor in our pushing back the game's announcement (and its release), but will be judged well worth the extra wait.

4) for scenario design, is there any unit cap? ie could I theoretically have 300+ squads on a side?

I don't know offhand, so I'll check.

4) specs: this is my big concern as the required specs, especially graphics card wise seem kinda high for a turn based game and taxing to my aged PC
I have a Nvidia 7600 gs 512mp card... Unfortunately i doudt Im getting full performance as I have , embarrassingly , only an AGP slotted mother board. Hopefully the the 2d mode will be easily handled by my old, yet faithfull dog of a PC??

I'm not the technical brains at WCS, so I'll ask Eric.

This looks like a great game and I cant wait to get my greedy hands on it.

Great! Here's to hoping you don't need to buy a new computer in the process...

Cheers!

[Gil R.]

Okay, I've got the final two answers:
* There's no limit on units.
* It's still a bit too early to know our video requirements, but there is a decent chance that you can at least play with chits. Please check back when we announce the official specs in the coming weeks.

[TheGrayMouser]

Sounds good, thanks for the replies!

[IainMcNeil]

Just to be clear on the multiplayer system, this game is not PBEM using our PBEM++ server, it uses a great new head to head multiplayer server system we are developing. We are developing this new system specifically to support Conflict of Heroes match making and provide good community support tools. It is different to the PBEM++ multiplayer server system we use in pure turn based games such as Field of Glory, Battle Academy and Panzer Corps. We've also decided to create a routing server to simplfying playing the game. Usually to play a head to head multiplayer game you need to open ports on your router to allow you to play. This is nto an indie developer thing, this is what many AAA games still require on PC. We know that many of you are not used to this sort of thing and we decided we wanted to invest a system that just worked and made this process easier. We're creating a server that each player will access, then the server will take messages and pass them to your opponent. This means you'll never directly connect to your opponent and removes the need to do all that tinkering with routers and ports - it will just work. It's a pretty significant job but its part of our commitment to make it easy to play the our games and support the developers with we work by adding tools to enhance their games, and one of the things that makes us unique! The only down side is we are not sure we can stick to the original date and get this extra server set up so we may be looking at a few days to a couple of weeks delay on our original plans.

[wodin]

WOW...that sure sounds like alot of work went into it. It also shows that Academy Games\Slitherine\Matrix are expecting this to be a long term flagship game.

Shame there is a release date delay though.


New tech like this will always have teething troubles. My only fear is what if the worse happens and it goes the way of Down in Flames at Battlefront where the game is still being sold even though the server is never working \on etc due to lack of players.


It would be great if there was the possibilty to bypass the server and link directly aswell, just in case the sver is down or any other not so nice things happen.

[jamespcrowley]

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

Just to be clear on the multiplayer system, this game is not PBEM using our PBEM++ server, it uses a great new head to head multiplayer server system we are developing. We are developing this new system specifically to support Conflict of Heroes match making and provide good community support tools. It is different to the PBEM++ multiplayer server system we use in pure turn based games such as Field of Glory, Battle Academy and Panzer Corps. We've also decided to create a routing server to simplfying playing the game. Usually to play a head to head multiplayer game you need to open ports on your router to allow you to play. This is nto an indie developer thing, this is what many AAA games still require on PC. We know that many of you are not used to this sort of thing and we decided we wanted to invest a system that just worked and made this process easier. We're creating a server that each player will access, then the server will take messages and pass them to your opponent. This means you'll never directly connect to your opponent and removes the need to do all that tinkering with routers and ports - it will just work. It's a pretty significant job but its part of our commitment to make it easy to play the our games and support the developers with we work by adding tools to enhance their games, and one of the things that makes us unique! The only down side is we are not sure we can stick to the original date and get this extra server set up so we may be looking at a few days to a couple of weeks delay on our original plans.

Why not release the game anyway, if it is ready, and patch on acccess to the new server when it is up and running

Not everyone can or will want to play H2H and those who want to can get used to the game and it's nuances prior to going online.

[KEYSTONE07950]

ORIGINAL: James Crowley

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

Just to be clear on the multiplayer system, this game is not PBEM using our PBEM++ server, it uses a great new head to head multiplayer server system we are developing. We are developing this new system specifically to support Conflict of Heroes match making and provide good community support tools. It is different to the PBEM++ multiplayer server system we use in pure turn based games such as Field of Glory, Battle Academy and Panzer Corps. We've also decided to create a routing server to simplfying playing the game. Usually to play a head to head multiplayer game you need to open ports on your router to allow you to play. This is nto an indie developer thing, this is what many AAA games still require on PC. We know that many of you are not used to this sort of thing and we decided we wanted to invest a system that just worked and made this process easier. We're creating a server that each player will access, then the server will take messages and pass them to your opponent. This means you'll never directly connect to your opponent and removes the need to do all that tinkering with routers and ports - it will just work. It's a pretty significant job but its part of our commitment to make it easy to play the our games and support the developers with we work by adding tools to enhance their games, and one of the things that makes us unique! The only down side is we are not sure we can stick to the original date and get this extra server set up so we may be looking at a few days to a couple of weeks delay on our original plans.

Why not release the game anyway, if it is ready, and patch on acccess to the new server when it is up and running

Not everyone can or will want to play H2H and those who want to can get used to the game and it's nuances prior to going online.

I agree 100%. Release the game without the multiplayer.

[e_barkmann]

I don't agree

Get the server config working prior to release.
This way any players who want to try H2H can do so without the need to wait for patches, making changes to their port forward settings on their routers, confusion etc.
A healthy multiplayer community will improve the chances of the system's longevity and early rumours that multiplayer is broken will not help.

cheers

[jamespcrowley]

ORIGINAL: Chris Merchant

I don't agree

Get the server config working prior to release.
This way any players who want to try H2H can do so without the need to wait for patches, making changes to their port forward settings on their routers, confusion etc.
A healthy multiplayer community will improve the chances of the system's longevity and early rumours that multiplayer is broken will not help.

cheers

There won't be a multiplayer community until the server is setup; whereas everyone could familiarise themselves with the game while they are waiting and those who can't or who are not interested in multiplayer will have the game to play sooner rather than later.

And why should anyone think multiplay is broken if, from the outset, it is announced that multiplayer will be available at a later date. If anything, not releasing the game sooner could start rumours that it is, in reality, primarily mutiplayer only and that the AI is an afterthought or not good enough to support the game on it's own merit.

Also, if you had read Ian Mcneil's post more thoroughly, you would see:

"We're creating a server that each player will access, then the server will take messages and pass them to your opponent. This means you'll never directly connect to your opponent and removes the need to do all that tinkering with routers and ports - it will just work."

So no need for confusion etc.

Why is it that people who only play games H2H assume that their needs and requirements are more important that everyone elses?

[Joram]

Whoa mate, I don't see that they are putting anybody ahead of anyone.  They are simply making sure that the game is equally fun to those who want multiplayer to those who don't.    While I'm sure they are very flattered by your eagerness to play the game, I don't think waiting a week or so is going to change yours or anyone's desire to play the game.   

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Joram

While I'm sure they are very flattered by your eagerness to play the game, I don't think waiting a week or so is going to change yours or anyone's desire to play the game.

The longer that the game is under the development, the better that it will be when it goes on sale.

[k9mike]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: Joram

While I'm sure they are very flattered by your eagerness to play the game, I don't think waiting a week or so is going to change yours or anyone's desire to play the game.

The longer that the game is under the development, the better that it will be when it goes on sale.

+1...Listen to what these guys are saying....

[IainMcNeil]

We have no intentions of releasing a partially finished game

It takes a lot of work to build to a releasable version whether it is single or multiplayer. That has to be every time you build a release build and test it. Doing this twice adds a huge overhead to the project and wastes time that could be better spent improving the game. We always have this fight between people who only want one mode or another or specific features and the answer is always the same - the game will be released when its ready and not before

[PirateJock]

I'm not a big multiplayer person but I'd go for waiting till all finished ... within reason I've plenty of other games to keep me busy until release.

Cheers

[Josh]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: Joram

While I'm sure they are very flattered by your eagerness to play the game, I don't think waiting a week or so is going to change yours or anyone's desire to play the game.

The longer that the game is under the development, the better that it will be when it goes on sale.

A bit OT maybe, but I used to believe that. So I waited twelve (!) years for Duke Nukem to finish... [:D]
First day it got released it was on my pc. [:@] Man what a bummer, 12 years to ruin a game. LOL
Oh well I'm sure that's *not* the case here.

[k9mike]

Dont worry Josh...You wont have to wait THAT long...lol. But, like Iain mentioned....better to release when its complete and not before...[;)]

[Erik Rutins]

We're not expecting this to become a major delay and it is something that we think the community will definitely appreciate. It may be something we can add to some of our other TCP/IP games as well once we have the system up and running, but it will definitely feature in Conflict of Heroes.

We will definitely make sure it is finished and tested before release.

Regards,

- Erik

[budd]

seems like command ops would be perfect for this multiplayer.

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: PirateJock

I'm not a big multiplayer person but I'd go for waiting till all finished ... within reason I've plenty of other games to keep me busy until release.

Cheers

Same here +1