More than two players? please? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe



Message

The Guru -> More than two players? please? (7/30/2016 10:25:04 AM)

Will there be an option for more to two players?

I know the soviet Union is not supposed to be in the thick of it before mid-game, but the soviets could be played by the AI until a player takes over.
Another option is to give one player France and the Soviet Union.



TheGreatRadish -> RE: More than two players? please? (7/30/2016 11:30:07 PM)

Not happening, I asked several times whether it was included or not, but was repeatedly ignored yet the devs were happy to answer other questions. Odd decision, but it's their game I guess. I would like to hear the rationale for why they didn't at least allow this as an option with a brand new engine but they don't want to respond and no one else seems to care.

PBEM with >2 players is the one thing more than anything that SC has been crying out for - it already had great mechanics, impressive content, wonderful immersion, easy-to-learn-hard-to-master status and superb ongoing support from Hubert and Bill so I'm really struggling to see why I, and my wargaming friends (the ancien regime :D), would purchase this. I introduced them to SC2:WaW and we've played it and all the successors and had so much fun since, but we're getting older and geographically more spread out - we've all just crossed the 30 threshold so nature has dictated that we can no longer all huddle round one machine for 12 hours at a time and direct our individual nations. We had hoped, and fully expected, SC3 would give us a chance to continue the fun as a game that could cope with five individual players via PBEM but it seems we can't. Even a compromise of separating the WA from the USSR would have allowed some of the variation and multiple input this series so badly needed.

We're just going to have to make do with playing AoD twice a year or so when we can all get together. We tried other games that allow you to do what we like but they don't match SC for playability (hell, even Hasbro's failed A&A port to PC in 1998 allowed AI control of individual nations so I refuse to accept it cant be done). Nothing lasts forever, I suppose. On an individual level, I might have picked up SC3 but I'm mighty peeved that my questions about this particular subject weren't even acknowledged, never mind answered, in the same thread(s) where devs made direct responses to other posters.

All the best Hubert and Bill, I hope SC3 works out as you hoped, but equally I hope that you revisit your decision to make a simple two player split. I cannot justify, and after speaking to them, neither can four others I play this game with, purchasing SC3 when it simply does not offer such basic fundamentals as increased player numbers and flexibility.



FlashXAron_slith -> RE: More than two players? please? (8/1/2016 5:25:00 PM)

... also disappointed, that near all Matrix/Slitherine games have the worst or better none MP / Coop feature ...
should be like Paradox games MP Part (hot join, up to 32 Players if needed) and best would be, an Internet part, where People Play at the SAME TIME their turns and if they want, even continue undere the week with PBEM ...

seems all developers here using somehow the same worse game engine, so will not Change, as they don't have the technologic Knowledge to do it different !



Hubert Cater -> RE: More than two players? please? (8/1/2016 7:15:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheGreatRadish

Not happening, I asked several times whether it was included or not, but was repeatedly ignored yet the devs were happy to answer other questions. Odd decision, but it's their game I guess. I would like to hear the rationale for why they didn't at least allow this as an option with a brand new engine but they don't want to respond and no one else seems to care.

PBEM with >2 players is the one thing more than anything that SC has been crying out for - it already had great mechanics, impressive content, wonderful immersion, easy-to-learn-hard-to-master status and superb ongoing support from Hubert and Bill so I'm really struggling to see why I, and my wargaming friends (the ancien regime :D), would purchase this. I introduced them to SC2:WaW and we've played it and all the successors and had so much fun since, but we're getting older and geographically more spread out - we've all just crossed the 30 threshold so nature has dictated that we can no longer all huddle round one machine for 12 hours at a time and direct our individual nations. We had hoped, and fully expected, SC3 would give us a chance to continue the fun as a game that could cope with five individual players via PBEM but it seems we can't. Even a compromise of separating the WA from the USSR would have allowed some of the variation and multiple input this series so badly needed.

We're just going to have to make do with playing AoD twice a year or so when we can all get together. We tried other games that allow you to do what we like but they don't match SC for playability (hell, even Hasbro's failed A&A port to PC in 1998 allowed AI control of individual nations so I refuse to accept it cant be done). Nothing lasts forever, I suppose. On an individual level, I might have picked up SC3 but I'm mighty peeved that my questions about this particular subject weren't even acknowledged, never mind answered, in the same thread(s) where devs made direct responses to other posters.

All the best Hubert and Bill, I hope SC3 works out as you hoped, but equally I hope that you revisit your decision to make a simple two player split. I cannot justify, and after speaking to them, neither can four others I play this game with, purchasing SC3 when it simply does not offer such basic fundamentals as increased player numbers and flexibility.


Hi GreatRadish,

Thanks for your feedback and to be honest we have just been a little overwhelmed with this project to say the least!

Bill and I are the only qualified devs on this project that can answer specific questions and the truth is, while we've tried our best to balance out answering questions while maintaining the demands of development, including now the public Beta, for many questions we simply don't have all the answers just yet.

While it is the case that we are nearing the end of our development cycle, we are still in development and we still have a list of items that we'd love to include but are not quite sure if they'll make the final cut.

Sounds like this is a very important feature for you and your friends, and if in the end it is not initially or ever included, it likely precludes you from purchasing the game and that is fair enough.

For everyone else, we really do hope they will enjoy everything the game will have to offer as there has been an incredible amount of effort put into this game to not only enhance the realism versus playability, but also the AI, the events and the numerous other new features we've managed to squeeze into the game.

Hope this helps,
Hubert





James Taylor -> RE: More than two players? please? (8/2/2016 3:38:24 AM)

If I may, I'd like to give an historical perspective of what SC has become with respect to the multi-player aspect which is sorely needed at this stage of development.

Remember? Remember when we used to have that rapid gameplay back in the early days of SC? TCIP? That was SC1 and the game mechanics and variables were nowhere as extensive as they are now.

It was one on one, simply because the game was "simple". No longer is that the case, the turns now take from 30 minutes to an hour in the late game with the numerous unit count that can be the norm of SC2. It's not a problem for a game vs the AI, you can save at any point and continue later, not so for PBEM or TCIP. I must say with the current culture the dedication of over an hour to a turn is difficult, at least in my environment, and things don't look to get any better.

Let's face it, the are too many distractions, we need that quick turnaround again as in the SC1 days and splitting up the responsibilities into a team effort will likely catalyze on line gaming again.

The various factions are subject to discussions. There could be the Italians with the various other minors, Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Finland and any other possibilities, perhaps Spain. This could be enhanced by a much more dynamic diplomatic model. With the Germans & Japanese(we know we're going worldwide eventually) that gives the Axis a possibility of 3 team members.

The Allies? Lots of matchups exist. Bottom line, we now have a gaming environment that only requires a fifteen minute attention span to get a move done and off to the next player, just like "The Good Ole Days".

Doesn't have to be with this iteration, but eventually, Hubert and Bill, the writing is on the wall. You might as well get started now, we can wait, make it great! Let's get that PBEM/TCP spirit going again and give SC3 something the other guys don't have.



lparkh -> RE: More than two players? please? (8/2/2016 3:42:19 AM)

I loved SC2 multiplayer (2). That being said evidence suggests most wargamers play solo. Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa measured statistivs and 80% of games are played solo.



James Taylor -> RE: More than two players? please? (8/2/2016 4:06:27 AM)

You are correct lparkh, but there used to be a very active on line gaming community at the SC1 forums over at Battlefront, much more frequent than SC2 ever was.

I'm wondering, what happened to that? My only explanation is the complexity and time investment to complete a turn.

SC is not getting less complicated, more features, more attention to game. Look at the counter density for DC, you have to move all those units and then there is the mechanic management.

Divide the responsibilities! I'm listening to make things move faster, suggestions?



lparkh -> RE: More than two players? please? (8/2/2016 4:46:20 AM)

A fair point SeaMonkey. After all quick turn around online card games are popular so why not a quick turn around strategy game? However, unfortunately your point works against SC3 being that game, it has higher detail then Sc2 even in terms of units and scale.
Grigsby put out his version of Axis and Allies awhile back. In the spirit of your point. Maybe it was ahead of its time.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9335938