RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby!

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby!

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby!

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/23/2004 7:41:29 AM

Lucifuge

Posts: 153
Joined: 3/26/2004
From: Staten Island, NY
Status: offline

In the immortal words of one of the greatest thinkers of our time (kidding!)...can't we all just get along? Two different types of games you are guys are arguing about, both of which I happen to like alot and own. If you dont like one or the other why bother running it down? Fact of matter is we are a small 'niche' group as far as software releases go and any successes like EU2 (with the patches!) and UV do nothing but help fund our future games. Has Paradox released buggy games? You bet..but they have also supported the games to death after purchase where they could have just took the money and ran but likely they realize the types of games they are making and good will/customer loyalty is important. Ok my mini rant off now back to staring at Matrix webpage waiting for the WiTP now on sale announcement...even if it takes another week or two.

(in reply to dinsdale)

Post #: 91

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/23/2004 9:14:12 AM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

WiTP??? Man that game suks (j/k), BIN is the game of games that I'm waiting for "now on sale" hehe

(in reply to Lucifuge)

Post #: 92

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/23/2004 12:19:23 PM

Juba

Posts: 654
Joined: 1/9/2001
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Didz

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale
What's your point? Is there some time expiration which renders a game invalid as a wargame according to your criteria?

No. I'm seeking to explore the practically of your assertion that you played an entire EU campaign online with four players.

Personally, I've found it difficult to complete a single battle lasting less than 60 minutes online with four players. But I would assume that a 400 hundred year campaign would take at least 10 if not 20 times that duration. I'm curious how you managed it.

Having said that I wouldn't class EU as a wargame anyway in my book its an RTS, and a rather poor one at that.

FYI they've played through the 400 (or was it the 300) year campaign with an average of around 18 players online. It's a great event, there have been 2 so far. Usually the game is played on the weekends and if someone can't make it a substitute is assigned to cover his position.

The best multiplayer games are either with IRL friends or ones that have been organised on the forum to be a continous game instead of a fairly pointless "one night stand". Playing just one night would be like just playing the firs 5 turns of a PBEM game of 60 turns. Just going on VNET and playing against some random people will mean you'll have a random experience.

_____________________________

El�m� on laiffii

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 93

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/23/2004 12:22:04 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I'll maybe take Paradox serious when I don't have to buy the same game twice with different names with fixes then wait a year to collect all the required patches to actually be able to play once. Paradox is firmly on the "do not buy" list until such time as someone tells me they actually released a game that is functional out of the box. Everything has bugs, we accept that, but you have to draw the line at functional. I'm not paying for HOI2, I already paid for EU2 (the bug patch for EU).

My exact sentiments! Forum would not allow me to post either. I activated an account but no access. Perhaps my nic "pinkstink" was unacceptable.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 6/23/2004 5:35:23 AM >

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 94

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/23/2004 1:51:20 PM

Didz

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reiryc
I've completed one over a period of about 3 weeks playing nightly for the longest campaign, 1419 - 1821. Could have taken longer but each of us were able to play for a good chunk of time each night.

Right! So it took 21 days to complete playing every night with the same four players.

I assume therefore than somehow the online game can be saved?

Did you arrange a set time to log on every night or just hang around until everyone logged onto the internet?

Sorry for the 3rd degree I'm just interested to know how this worked becuase it doesn't sound very practical to me.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 95

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/23/2004 2:08:38 PM

Didz

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:

ORIGINAL: Didz
No. I'm seeking to explore the practically of your assertion that you played an entire EU campaign online with four players.

You need to double check, I didn't make that assertion. However, there are reports and AARs all over the PE fora, so perhaps you could peruse and satisfy your morbid curiosity.

Its not morbid curiosity. Its a critical feature of any serious wargame that it can be played against human opponents.

Complex wargames cannot be played in real time against human opponents over the net becuase they take too long to play. Thus PBEM capability is essential.

You claimed that was 'Pap' and you had successfully played EU against four human opponents. You subsequenlty stated it took 21 evenings of play to complete and I'm curious how four people managed that over the internet.

If you are now claiming that isn't what you said and that you didn't play this game with four people over the internet. Then we are back to square one and you seem to be proving my assertion that RTS style wargames aren't capable of being played online with multiple human opponents.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:

ORIGINAL: Didz
Personally, I've found it difficult to complete a single battle lasting less than 60 minutes online with four players.

A battle? Perhaps you need to explain, battles are fought automatically when two hostile armies enter the same province, no further input needed from the player. That must have been some battle to last an hour, or are you confusing EU with another game.

We are dealing with general concepts of feasibility here. The game in question was actually MTW which allows real-time battles to be fought on-line between multiple armies each commanded by a different human player. The battles are about an hour long, which is historically far too short and yet its very rare for all the players to still be connected and playing by the end.

To me the concept that four or more players could remain on-line long enough to complete a real-time wargame is ludicrous and yet we still get wargame designers producing games that can only be played this way. Immediately limiting their appeal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:

Having said that I wouldn't class EU as a wargame anyway in my book its an RTS, and a rather poor one at that.

Of course you would That entire hour you claimed to play the game must have been enough to form such a clear, concise and open-minded evaluation of the game.

I played it somewhat longer than that, having wasted good money on it in the first place. Unfortunately, it didn't get any better.

I like RTS games and I like Wargames but in my opinion EU is neither and I won't be wasting any more money on the series.

< Message edited by Didz -- 6/24/2004 12:30:04 AM >

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to dinsdale)

Post #: 96

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/23/2004 3:24:15 PM

dinsdale

Posts: 384
Joined: 5/1/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Didz

Its not morbid curiosity. Its a critical feature of any serious wargame that it can be played against human opponents.

Complex wargames cannot be played in real time against human opponents over the net becuase they take too long to play. Thus PBEM capability is essential.

No, that's your opinion. It is possible to play without PBEM, as I have done so with HTTR. Many players have done the same with EU, so apparently that would contradict your announcement about what is possible with a game.

quote:

You claimed that was 'Pap' and you had successfully played EU against four human opponents. You subsequenlty stated it took 21 evenings of play to complete and I'm curious how four people managed that over the internet.

No, I did not. That would have been someone else, I've already asked you to double check, which you obviously did not do.

quote:

We are dealing with general concepts of feasibility here. The game in question was actually MTW which allows real-time battles to be fought on-line between multiple armies each commanded by a different human player. The battles are about an hour long, which is historically far too short and yet its very rare for all the players to still be connected and playing by the end.

So your claims about EU are actually based on M T/W

Why stop there, why play several other games and use them as evidence that EU's no good.

quote:

To me the concept that four or more players could remain in-line long enough to complete a real-time wargame is ludicrous and yet we still get wargame designers producing games that can only be played this way. Immediately limiting their appeal.

Obviously it's not ludicrous as enough people are able to do it. Just because you can't or don't want to, doesn't mean it's not feasible.

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 97

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/23/2004 5:06:43 PM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Didz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reiryc
I've completed one over a period of about 3 weeks playing nightly for the longest campaign, 1419 - 1821. Could have taken longer but each of us were able to play for a good chunk of time each night.

Right! So it took 21 days to complete playing every night with the same four players.

I assume therefore than somehow the online game can be saved?

Did you arrange a set time to log on every night or just hang around until everyone logged onto the internet?

Sorry for the 3rd degree I'm just interested to know how this worked becuase it doesn't sound very practical to me.

Yep, we all basically logged in around the same time. They have a server setup to meet other players. We just all agreed to show up around the same time. Sometimes someone would show up late, but it was no big deal, we'd just chit chat while waiting.

Yes the online game can be saved, you assumed correctly. We also had the auto save feature enabled to save every game year in case of any problems.

This was very practical. Just like pbem campaigns with UV or Panzer Campaigns, sometimes I find someone that plays to completion, sometimes I don't. My experience was that finding someone who stuck the game out in both instances were about equal.

_____________________________

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 98

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/23/2004 5:08:54 PM

tiredoftryingnames

Posts: 1919
Joined: 12/10/2001
From: Chesapeake, Virginia
Status: offline

Gary Grisby games require patches to fix hard to find issues after release in a game filled with complex formulas and lots of detail.

Paradox games require overhauls to get them from beta to playable in step 1 after release. In step 2 all those overhauls leads to a new version of the same game with fixes for most of the bugs and adds a few new additions that they charge you for in a new part 2 game.

< Message edited by tiredoftryingnames -- 6/23/2004 10:09:30 AM >

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 99

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/23/2004 5:13:00 PM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Didz

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:

ORIGINAL: Didz
No. I'm seeking to explore the practically of your assertion that you played an entire EU campaign online with four players.

You need to double check, I didn't make that assertion. However, there are reports and AARs all over the PE fora, so perhaps you could peruse and satisfy your morbid curiosity.

Its not morbid curiosity. Its a critical feature of any serious wargame that it can be played against human opponents.

Complex wargames cannot be played in real time against human opponents over the net becuase they take too long to play. Thus PBEM capability is essential.

You claimed that was 'Pap' and you had successfully played EU against four human opponents. You subsequenlty stated it took 21 evenings of play to complete and I'm curious how four people managed that over the internet.

That would be me and it's not a claim, it's a stated fact.

Additionally, I've played a couple Napoleon in Russia campaigns online. We'd just chit chat while the other person made his moves. Wasn't a big deal and both of us preferred it to pbem.

quote:

If you are now claiming that isn't what you said and that you didn't play this game with four people over the internet. Then we are back to square one and you seem to be proving my assertion that RTS style wargames aren't capable of being played online with multiple human opponents.

No, the problem is you seem to be having difficulty in being able to distinguish between the name dinsdale and Reiryc when something is said to you.

_____________________________

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 100

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/23/2004 5:40:12 PM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

In defense of Didz, what I will say here about these GRAND campaign scale wargames, and not just computer versions but boardgame style as well, is that the multiplayer population of these games is very small. Especially compared to wargames that only take a few hours 2 to 4 or don't take forever PBEM as well.

PBEM has a large population of gamers, and 2 to 4 hour multiplayer experiences online have a large population, but, these grand scale games just take too long for your average joe to play online or offline, though PBEM imho would be the avenue of choice if I were to compete in one multiplayer.

You guys that spent 21 hours completing a game all at one time, obviously all had the free time to do this, but, how many of your average joe's have that kind of time on a daily basis or would even want to?

Even if you have 100 people willing to do this on a regular basis is a far cry from the majority of multiplayers out there, playing the likes of other RTS games online. At least from the online multiplayer services I've been to like THE ZONE or GAMESPY.

The difference being, there's more opponent opportunities in PBEM type systems of games and games that only last 2 to 4 hours, than there are in these grand campaign scale type wargames that can last for days, weeks, months, even years. I personally don't want to play any single game that's going to last a year, it requires holding onto ones thoughts and strategy and tactics too long for one individual game and my attention level is not high enough for that.

Having a PBEM system though doesn't leave anyone out of their multiplayer experiences, having to have specific times to play online does.

I tried to play Civilization II online, and never once was a game ever finished, and never once did the participants that quit, ever come back to those games.

I just don't ever see long grand campaign multiplayer games ever being a "hot" gaming need by your average joes. I do see PBEM and 2 to 4 hour skirmishes being what's "hot" atm.

< Message edited by ravinhood -- 6/23/2004 10:42:16 AM >

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 101

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/23/2004 6:57:06 PM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

You guys that spent 21 hours completing a game all at one time, obviously all had the free time to do this, but, how many of your average joe's have that kind of time on a daily basis or would even want to?

The only 21 I've seen used was 21 days. The point being, a game of EU2 was played over a period of 3 weeks, ie 21 days. It wasn't 21 exactly, but didz threw that number out there and for discussion's sake, works fine. However, the most that was every played at once was 6 hours and that was a saturday

quote:

The difference being, there's more opponent opportunities in PBEM type systems of games and games that only last 2 to 4 hours, than there are in these grand campaign scale type wargames that can last for days, weeks, months, even years.

Indeed, most people prefer not to play a long campaign game in my experience, regardless of whether its pbem turn based or rts or wego etc.

quote:

I personally don't want to play any single game that's going to last a year, it requires holding onto ones thoughts and strategy and tactics too long for one individual game and my attention level is not high enough for that.

I believe the WitP campaign game will take a year or so.

quote:

Having a PBEM system though doesn't leave anyone out of their multiplayer experiences, having to have specific times to play online does.

Yes and no... some people like to chit chat live with other people while they play.

quote:

I tried to play Civilization II online, and never once was a game ever finished, and never once did the participants that quit, ever come back to those games.

I've had the same types of experiences with UV, panzer campaigns, gettysburg, nap in russia, east front 2, etc.

_____________________________

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 102

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/23/2004 7:05:01 PM

Koper

Posts: 34
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

To conclude the discussion so far - we all like what we like, we are proud of it and damn the competition!

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 103

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/23/2004 7:23:25 PM

max_h

Posts: 187
Joined: 10/18/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

The only problem with that mods statement Max_h is that if you goto the Paradox boards and bash their games, they "ban" you. Hardly an "open" forum in my opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

They even "moved" that thread that this thread is about to the OT forums to HIDE if from the point it was making, Grigsby's games are better than Johans games expecially HOI and soon HOI2.

lets compare. the hoi2 thread at W@W/matrix games is closed, the thread about gg games at paradox games is open.

while morons like les the sarge are free to rant relentlessly - without even having bothered to play the game - here, posters at paradox are adviced to forward the complaints to the producer.

guess what I think is the better policy?

personally I�m a grigsby fan, but I don�t think that W@W looks too impressive. his strength lies in detail, not in abstraction. while I enjoyed UV, WiTP looks like its too unwieldly for the not unemployed (6 hours for the first turn? wtf? sorry, I can�t afford so much time), W@W otoh has many very disturbing abstractions (western allies, "province" count on the map, etc.). if WiTP e.g. would have been an improved PW I�d have been happy, but as it looks its an expanded UV... meaning that I can�t afford to play it.

to sum it up: grand strategy -> Paradox, operational warfare -> grigsby.

< Message edited by max_h -- 6/23/2004 5:41:01 PM >

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 104

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/24/2004 3:26:58 AM

Pippin

Posts: 1233
Joined: 11/9/2002
Status: offline

quote:

I just don't ever see long grand campaign multiplayer games ever being a "hot" gaming need by your average joes.

There is a solution to that. Join rated club play. Someone wants to quit or not finish their losing side, then take the loss. If your looking for an opponent, and see a lot of non-completes on thier stats, then dont play em. It seems to sort out the weak pretty quick. :P

_____________________________

Nelson stood on deck and observed as the last of the Spanish fleets sank below the waves�

(in reply to max_h)

Post #: 105

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/24/2004 4:57:38 PM

Slaughtermeyer

Posts: 156
Joined: 5/10/2002
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline

Here are some comments about Crusader Kings, Paradox's latest release and first non-Strategy First release, from their own forum:

It is bordering on stupidity to purchase anything from Paradox until at least a year after its release. -- morganja

Since I have got the game, I have played about 6-7 serious games. 2 ended in corrupt saves, and all the others ended in a multiple paralysing crash that would happen on the same day after each reload, thus making them unplayable. -- Bocaj

Excuses are the only thing more aboundant than bugs in a paradox game.Time and time agian their products are totaly unstable out of the box. -- Belissarius

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

quote:

the hoi2 mod explicitely stated that criticism against other games should be expressed on the producers/publishers website.

The only problem with that mods statement Max_h is that if you goto the Paradox boards and bash their games, they "ban" you. Hardly an "open" forum in my opinion.

It actually was official Paradox policy for a period of time to ban people from their forum for making objectionable (to them) comments on a different forum. The rationale they gave for the policy was that they didn't feel that they needed to invite people to their "home" who badmouthed them elsewhere. This policy was officially stated by Paradox on the Languish forum but that post was eventually deleted.

< Message edited by Slaughtermeyer -- 6/24/2004 10:14:13 AM >

_____________________________

We must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war,for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war.It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy. R.Jackson,1945

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 106

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/24/2004 5:59:16 PM

mavraam

Posts: 436
Joined: 5/11/2004
Status: offline

quote:

It actually was official Paradox policy for a period of time to ban people from their forum for making objectionable (to them) comments on a different forum. The rationale they gave for the policy was that they didn't feel that they needed to invite people to their "home" who badmouthed them elsewhere. This policy was officially stated by Paradox on the Languish forum but that post was eventually deleted.

Just out of curiosity, how the heck do they know what you said on a different forum? How do they tie the user id's together. Do they have access to your ip address at the other forum????

_____________________________

(in reply to Slaughtermeyer)

Post #: 107

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/24/2004 6:34:43 PM

Slaughtermeyer

Posts: 156
Joined: 5/10/2002
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mavraam

quote:

It actually was official Paradox policy for a period of time to ban people from their forum for making objectionable (to them) comments on a different forum. The rationale they gave for the policy was that they didn't feel that they needed to invite people to their "home" who badmouthed them elsewhere. This policy was officially stated by Paradox on the Languish forum but that post was eventually deleted.

Just out of curiosity, how the heck do they know what you said on a different forum? How do they tie the user id's together. Do they have access to your ip address at the other forum????

Some of the people on the Languish forum were careless/naive enough to use the same name on that forum as on the Paradox forum.

_____________________________

(in reply to mavraam)

Post #: 108

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/24/2004 6:53:15 PM

Koper

Posts: 34
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

Sorry, don't understand...

You mean that this policy is still used?

I've seen many very negative comments (or simple flames, comment is not good word here) on the Paradox games on their own forum, but most of the time, IF the thread was not constructive at all ("Game is bad!"/"No, it's good!"/"You are an idiot!"/"No, you are!" kind of thing...), they were usually moved to the OT forum. They simply got their fora organized with many sub-forums to use for different topics - check the root of their forum directory if you don't belive...

Now, back to the topic... Leaving stability and balance topics aside (those are main problems of their products, that's for sure), their game systems got some really nice features you won't find anywhere else. Their games are flexible (sometimes too much - exploits), with great modding potential (HoI got Great War 1914-1920 mod already and it's really something! Not to mention numerous, regular mods...), are quite easy to manage interface-wise for the Grand Strategy that goes down to divisional level organization (HoI) or got huge "what if" potential (Victoria, CK). I like turn-based "operational" wargames, but in Grand Strategy genre (not much competition, all right..

) HoI is the king.

(in reply to Slaughtermeyer)

Post #: 109

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/27/2004 6:42:16 PM

Titanwarrior89

Posts: 3283
Joined: 8/28/2003
From: arkansas
Status: offline

I probley will not spend another dime on HOI, not historial enough for me. The real time sucks. Also i dont think they are in the same league with Matrix and GG when it comes to Historical Simulations. Hope i spelled that right.

Now if we could only buy WitP

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 110

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/28/2004 9:42:16 AM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

Heh, SPARTAN is the NEW KING of Grand Strategy games, makes HOI look like a toddlers toy and much more fun to play cause it has a more indepth combat system. Just get down and dirty with conquering the world in the ANCIENTS time period of the Spartans or any of the other (99) PLAYABLE factions. A farily complex and detailed Diplomacy system that has about 50-60 choices overall. How much Diplomacy did HOI have? heh hardly any.

I must say out of the box it didn't crash or have any bugs that I could find that destoyed the gameplay like PARADOX's games do.

It also has an AI that's incredibly hard on its hardest settings (In fact they had to patch in an EASIER AI on the normal and easy difficulty settings because of all the whiners, how often do you see a patch to decrease the power of the AI? lol). You really get to play this game, not so much let the game play itself like HOI does for the most part. I'd rather command Hoplites than tanks anyways. ;)

The tactical portion of the game is really like it should be, but, you get to setup your units in all kinds of formations and pick combat strategies, then click the go button and the computer takes over, you have three choices during the battle, to blow the "rally" horn, to mount a "charge" for reserve units and to "retreat".

Really puts HOI to shame, I doubt I'll ever load HOI onto my hard-drive again after playing SPARTAN. ;) Can't wait for TIN SOLDIERS.

< Message edited by ravinhood -- 6/29/2004 2:11:01 AM >

(in reply to Titanwarrior89)

Post #: 111

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/28/2004 1:15:35 PM

elmo3

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline

Do you have a link for Spartan? I thought it wasn't out in the US yet. Thanks.

Edit - Never mind, I found it at Gamespot.

< Message edited by elmo3 -- 6/28/2004 11:50:45 AM >

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 112

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/28/2004 3:04:25 PM

Koper

Posts: 34
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

Spartan, heh? Slitherine?

Legion, Chariots of War... - something like 3rd part of the series.

Seems nice, but I have to remind you that it's a lot easier to make game about ancient times... mainly because there is seriously less people that can say "It's crap, because Tiger I is not modeled properly, Rommel was not general in .., Italy is too powerful, planes are hard to handle, blah, blah, blah". Almost like making fantasy Grand Strategy.

Experience in creating 2 previous games about the same also helps.

EDIT: What's more, it was already patched many times (latest one is 1.017). And what's more, it already got expansion-pack on the way (Guess what? Simply new campaign - Troy - more fantasy).

Still, seems like a nice game... Have to try it, that's for sure.

< Message edited by Koper -- 6/28/2004 1:23:49 PM >

(in reply to elmo3)

Post #: 113

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/28/2004 4:13:20 PM

Didz

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

Had a look at Spartan in Game this lunchtime. But got put off by the screenshots. It looks remarkably like 'Age of Empires'.

Does anyone know if its real-time or turn-based and whether it has a campaign setting and PBEM options?

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to Koper)

Post #: 114

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/28/2004 4:53:16 PM

Hanal

Posts: 2312
Joined: 11/1/2003
Status: offline

Didz...don't know if you saw the official web page ot not so here it is:

http://www.slitherine.co.uk/spartan/SpartanIndex.htm

According to the site...it is turn based.....I played Legion when it first came out....it was fun for a while but it became redundant and I got bored with it....SPARTAN looks like an upgrade from LEGION though...

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 115

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/28/2004 5:54:45 PM

elmo3

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline

No PBEM for Spartan from what I saw at the web site. Too bad as that is the only way for me to play multiplayer these days. If the AI is really good it might be worth a look anyway.

(in reply to Hanal)

Post #: 116

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/28/2004 6:17:49 PM

Didz

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3

No PBEM for Spartan from what I saw at the web site. Too bad as that is the only way for me to play multiplayer these days. If the AI is really good it might be worth a look anyway.

Thats very odd.

If its turn based why owuldn't they have provided PBEM?

Perhaps one can do it just by swapping saved game files. I have Chariots of War already but hadn't made the connection between this and Spartan. CoW is quite a nice little game, though I note that this doesn't have PBEM either.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to elmo3)

Post #: 117

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/29/2004 9:06:12 AM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

I agree Legion and Chariots of War were not up to my expectations, but, Spartan has improved most that was flawed of the two previous, like you don't have to lose ALL your units now if you don't win the battles, so they put in a retreat feature, you still take some battle damage, but, you don't lose all your units just because you are outnumbered like in Legion and Chariots of war.

The Diplomacy feature in this game is unbelievable. I counted 50 or 60 diplomatic choices, instead of the 100 I mentioned above when I looked them up in the manual. The 100 was a 100 playable factions/nations.

Also their patch numbering is not like other patch numberings, the number is like the number of things they have changed or added to the game overall since release, so there have been like 17 changes to things overall, not 17 patchs! lol

Patch 1.013 is really my favorite for a tough AI, they patched DOWN the AI in 1.017 and now it's not as aggressive as it was in 1.013, why oh why do they listen to the loudest whiners first? heh We're working on them bringing back the aggression of 1.013 and just let the babies whine. I've already gone back to 1.013, it's more fun when there is "fear of losing" than when there is no fear at all. I beat the very first game I played of patch 1.017 on "hard difficulty" (the most chosen level of play for me) and before with patch 1.013 I got my butt handed to me every single game! lol Some people were losing on the EASY level in patch 1.013 hahahah, so they whined, "I can't beat the game on easy wah wah wah" hahahaha

Overall though I enjoy the campaign map and it's movement and the colossal size of the game and the nations. Rome is an invading faction that comes at a certain point, they are awesome overpowering. heh Then you have the Eastern Great King army out of the east to have to contend with, this little game is one of those quiet winners and it's rare I give much credentials to many games of today, but, that 1.013 AI is just a wonderful sight to behold. Who'd ever thought someone would "like" losing to the AI? ;)

Oh and Elmo, it doesn't have a PBEM feature because the combat portion is in real time, simular to Total War but not like total war, you are the commander of your armies only, you get to place them on the tactical map, give them orders of what to do during the battle and then let your generals take over from there and you just sit back and watch until you want to call in the reserves, which is a "charge" command and or blow the "rally" horn which stops some of your units from routing (basically gives them a morale boost for a short time) and/or "retreat", if you feel the battle is going badly or you know you are outnumbered and going to lose anyways.

If you like single player games and like a challenging AI, this one has it, as long as you stick with patch 1.013, if you feel the AI is too tough then you can patch to 1.017, heh, I sort of feel those that think an AI is ever too tough, just aren't very good players. ;) I think the 1.013 AI is tougher than heck, but, I don't mind, it's more fun trying to defeat it, than "knowing" you are going to defeat it. for me anyways.

< Message edited by ravinhood -- 6/29/2004 2:14:26 AM >

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 118

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/29/2004 10:58:35 AM

Didz

Posts: 728
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
Oh and Elmo, it doesn't have a PBEM feature because the combat portion is in real time, simular to Total War but not like total war, you are the commander of your armies only, you get to place them on the tactical map, give them orders of what to do during the battle and then let your generals take over from there and you just sit back and watch until you want to call in the reserves, which is a "charge" command and or blow the "rally" horn which stops some of your units from routing (basically gives them a morale boost for a short time) and/or "retreat", if you feel the battle is going badly or you know you are outnumbered and going to lose anyways.

Thats a shame. I'd rather have sacrificed the real-time combat and had the chance to play the game against other human players.

_____________________________

Didz
Fortis balore et armis

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 119

RE: They are bashing Gary Grigsby! - 6/29/2004 1:06:06 PM

Slaughtermeyer

Posts: 156
Joined: 5/10/2002
From: Pennsylvania
Status: offline

Just now Paradox deleted my post explaining the fundamental flaw in Europa Universalis 2's battle morale system that results in armies of 1 occasionally routing armies of 10,000+. Not only that, it closed the thread so I would not be able to repost the information.

Here's the closed thread:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=153471

Here's my post that was deleted:

[QUOTE=DalaMusketeer]Pretty annoying to loose those kind of fights. Guess the whole truth isn't releaved in the dust of the battlefield.

How else can you explain a loss to a one-man-army? :)[/QUOTE]
It can be explained by the flawed ahistorical way in which the EU2 engine treats combat morale. The amount of morale damage a force can inflict or sustain has nothing to do with the relative sizes of the forces involved. A force of 100 men (or for that matter 1 man) can inflict and sustain as much morale damage as 5000+ men, all other factors being equal.

_____________________________

(in reply to Didz)

Post #: 120