Support the Devs, don't like the game

Support the Devs, don't like the game (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War

Message

Numdydar -> Support the Devs, don't like the game (12/14/2018 1:25:24 PM)
As I have noted several times Herbert and Bill are just awesome people. So I will always buy their games whether I like the game or not. In the case of WaW, it is, imho, unplayable. My reasons are below. Some of these have been brought up by myself and others. I will say that if WaW is one of the first games of this type you have played, it is great. For anyone with a decent amount of experience it is not. - Supply issues are game breaking. I will have a separate thread about that - Time scale - We need weekly turns period As an example - In June a Land unit is deployed in Japan. In July it is transported to China and unloads. In August, it gets close to the front (if you are lucky you might get an attack but unlikely). Finally In Sept you can actually use the unit. So it takes FOUR months before you can actually use the unit. what makes this example even worse is if the unit needs any upgrading as that adds another month to the timeline. So five months. Almost half a year? Really? - Map scale - This have been discussed over and over again. So nothing more needs to be said other than the map needs to be 25-50% bigger Other design decisions I disagree with - Removal of transit boxes. Having a larger map is far more important than not having transit boxes. So make the map bigger and bring them back. - Reducing map scale so less units to move. I have no issue moving large number of units in the late game. Again make the map bigger and increase number of units. I don't care that my turns will take longer - Shorting the AI processing time by 'dumbing' down the game. I don't care if the AI takes 30+ minutes to do its turn. I know its shocking but I could actually do something else while its processing. The summary at the start of my turn tells me everything I need to know. I don't need to see every AI unit move around/attack Unfortunately fixing the above (assuming that they want it 'fixed') sounds like a new game versus a DLC. But even if it was a new game, WaW Gold maybe [:)] , I'd still buy it at full price. Fury has had a long winning streak up until now. So I will just go back to WiE and AoD when I need my SC fix.

roy64 -> RE: Support the Devs, don't like the game (12/14/2018 3:03:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Numdydar As I have noted several times Herbert and Bill are just awesome people. So I will always buy their games whether I like the game or not. In the case of WaW, it is, imho, unplayable. My reasons are below. Some of these have been brought up by myself and others. I will say that if WaW is one of the first games of this type you have played, it is great. For anyone with a decent amount of experience it is not. - Supply issues are game breaking. I will have a separate thread about that - Time scale - We need weekly turns period As an example - In June a Land unit is deployed in Japan. In July it is transported to China and unloads. In August, it gets close to the front (if you are lucky you might get an attack but unlikely). Finally In Sept you can actually use the unit. So it takes FOUR months before you can actually use the unit. what makes this example even worse is if the unit needs any upgrading as that adds another month to the timeline. So five months. Almost half a year? Really? - Map scale - This have been discussed over and over again. So nothing more needs to be said other than the map needs to be 25-50% bigger Other design decisions I disagree with - Removal of transit boxes. Having a larger map is far more important than not having transit boxes. So make the map bigger and bring them back. - Reducing map scale so less units to move. I have no issue moving large number of units in the late game. Again make the map bigger and increase number of units. I don't care that my turns will take longer - Shorting the AI processing time by 'dumbing' down the game. I don't care if the AI takes 30+ minutes to do its turn. I know its shocking but I could actually do something else while its processing. The summary at the start of my turn tells me everything I need to know. I don't need to see every AI unit move around/attack Unfortunately fixing the above (assuming that they want it 'fixed') sounds like a new game versus a DLC. But even if it was a new game, WaW Gold maybe [:)] , I'd still buy it at full price. Fury has had a long winning streak up until now. So I will just go back to WiE and AoD when I need my SC fix. I agree with you I stopped playing it within three days. This game is a step back from War in Europe. [sm=sad-1361.gif][sm=sad-1361.gif][sm=sad-1361.gif]

wfzimmerman -> RE: Support the Devs, don't like the game (12/14/2018 6:42:57 PM)
What's "AOD"?

Toby42 -> RE: Support the Devs, don't like the game (12/14/2018 6:48:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman What's "AOD"? Assault on Democracy. As to this game, I think that I would have preferred a stand alone Pacific game on the same scale as WIE? Just my opinion...

Hubert Cater -> RE: Support the Devs, don't like the game (12/14/2018 7:06:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Numdydar As I have noted several times Herbert and Bill are just awesome people. So I will always buy their games whether I like the game or not. In the case of WaW, it is, imho, unplayable. My reasons are below. Some of these have been brought up by myself and others. I will say that if WaW is one of the first games of this type you have played, it is great. For anyone with a decent amount of experience it is not. - Supply issues are game breaking. I will have a separate thread about that - Time scale - We need weekly turns period As an example - In June a Land unit is deployed in Japan. In July it is transported to China and unloads. In August, it gets close to the front (if you are lucky you might get an attack but unlikely). Finally In Sept you can actually use the unit. So it takes FOUR months before you can actually use the unit. what makes this example even worse is if the unit needs any upgrading as that adds another month to the timeline. So five months. Almost half a year? Really? - Map scale - This have been discussed over and over again. So nothing more needs to be said other than the map needs to be 25-50% bigger Other design decisions I disagree with - Removal of transit boxes. Having a larger map is far more important than not having transit boxes. So make the map bigger and bring them back. - Reducing map scale so less units to move. I have no issue moving large number of units in the late game. Again make the map bigger and increase number of units. I don't care that my turns will take longer - Shorting the AI processing time by 'dumbing' down the game. I don't care if the AI takes 30+ minutes to do its turn. I know its shocking but I could actually do something else while its processing. The summary at the start of my turn tells me everything I need to know. I don't need to see every AI unit move around/attack Unfortunately fixing the above (assuming that they want it 'fixed') sounds like a new game versus a DLC. But even if it was a new game, WaW Gold maybe [:)] , I'd still buy it at full price. Fury has had a long winning streak up until now. So I will just go back to WiE and AoD when I need my SC fix. Thanks for the feedback and support as always Numdydar [:)] Some responses: 1) Supply issues - I've posted a response to the other thread on this and I'm hoping some of the new changes for World at War, which may have been missed, mostly address these. Also, these are being retrofited to War in Europe as well and in fact yesterday I posted an updated v1.16 Beta (unofficial) for War in Europe that rolls in all the changes into that game now as well. If you only play against the AI, then this unofficial Beta is for you [8D] http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4568298 2) Turn time concerns - This one surprises us to be honest as it is exactly the same as it was for AoD, and on average more or less the same as it is in War in Europe, but that being said I have put together a quick experimental MOD for players to try if they prefer to turn lengths of 7 days as has been requested. I've adjusted the MPP collections to be half of what they are by default so that after 2 turns you collect the same as you do now since turns are 14 days. Again, it is a quick mod and there have been no other adjustments, so that means convoy income by default is much larger proportionally speaking, action points are the same and in my tests so far it does seem to make the AI look better so maybe that is not a bad thing [:)] For example, it was able to historically capture Warsaw by the end of September and roll over France by early March 1940! I'll post this mod shortly. 3) Scale - There is not much we would strongly consider at the moment as attempting to match WiE scale puts us at nearly 148,000 hexes which would be no trivial task to create a world map at that size, especially considering all the coastlines, terrain, roads, rail etc. One suggestion for those that are finding the current scale too small compared to WiE is to perhaps try starting with the 1942 or 1943 campaigns first, because there is a lot of moving around long distances once the war really heats up, in a way that isn't immediately apparent in the 1939-40 period. 4) Dumbing down the AI - This is actually the opposite in this release as every effort was made to not only improve the AI, Amphibious landings will have been greatly improved for this release (now for WiE as well) but to also try and speed it up as much as possible with each release as well. Hope this helps, Hubert

xwormwood -> RE: Support the Devs, don't like the game (12/14/2018 8:15:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Numdydar Other design decisions I disagree with - Removal of transit boxes. Having a larger map is far more important than not having transit boxes. So make the map bigger and bring them back. I couldn't disagree more. What you call transit boxes are in realtiy beam boxes. A unit leaves the planet earth for outer space, to be beamed back on earth some turns later, far away from its starting point. In my eyes that is in no way the correct appoach to handle long distance travels in a WW2 campaign. Is it a solution? Yes. But it is the completely wrong solution. It kills the game. It kills the reason to even have or use oceanic tiles. These transit or loop boxes would be the reason for me to even quit playing the game, and I write this after playing the game for many, many long years.

Numdydar -> RE: Support the Devs, don't like the game (12/14/2018 10:02:04 PM)
Well we will need to disagree then. The transit boxes covered areas of the oceans where there was no chance of intercept by the Axis. Plus you could still intercept ships moving to and from the boxes so I really do not consider it game breaking as you do. I see no need to laboriously move ships around long distances when I do not have to. If I really felt like doing that, I'd just play War in the Pacific lol.

norvandave -> RE: Support the Devs, don't like the game (12/14/2018 10:06:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Numdydar - Shorting the AI processing time by 'dumbing' down the game. I don't care if the AI takes 30+ minutes to do its turn. I know its shocking but I could actually do something else while its processing. The summary at the start of my turn tells me everything I need to know. I don't need to see every AI unit move around/attack Agree, I would also like to see a bigger map and agree with longer AI turns, if necessary. I am not in favour of dumbing down the AI. During AI turns I would go away and do something else in the meantime, but I don't agree that the turn start summary tell you everything you need to know, especially regarding naval losses. I have previously suggested that it would be a great feature to be able to replay the AI turn movements, so that we could see what happened during the AI turn. This feature is especially important for naval carrier attacks, where they tend to strike and then retreat. If we had not been watching the AI turn then we would not know where the attack came from. We would only get a notice that a battleship was destroyed.

Numdydar -> RE: Support the Devs, don't like the game (12/14/2018 10:08:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater Thanks for the feedback and support as always Numdydar [:)] Some responses: 4) Dumbing down the AI - This is actually the opposite in this release as every effort was made to not only improve the AI, Amphibious landings will have been greatly improved for this release (now for WiE as well) but to also try and speed it up as much as possible with each release as well. Hope this helps, Hubert It helps a lot Herbert [:)] By dumbing down the game, I do not mean to imply the AI is dumb. Not awesome, but definitely not dumb [:)] The 'dumbing' down is referring that the number of turns and scale have so compressed in order to reduce the play time and the number of units involved so the AI turn does not take as long. To me that makes the game much less complex so it is 'dumbed down'. I also totally get that making the map bigger would be a major effort. Which is why I suggested to make a Gold version of the game [:D] Should only take a month or two right lol?

Hubert Cater -> RE: Support the Devs, don't like the game (12/15/2018 12:38:21 AM)
Perhaps I've been misunderstood here then. For example, at the current scale of World at War, and already from the start of the game, there will be more units in play than War in Europe and this generally continues all the way until the end of the game. By game end there are at times greater distances in play too for the naval aspect when the AI has to consider planning from let's say the US West coast for naval and amphibious/transport operations down and around Australia to the Dutch East Indies and to India and so on. In terms of capability of the AI, it can handle these extra units and distances (as well as it currently does), and would in theory handle a map at 4X the number of hexes (everything would work the same just at a different scale and War in Europe already showcases this), it is just that this would simply add extra time to each AI turn, i.e. extra units and extra long distances are the most expensive in terms of the time cost for the AI. The normal way around this, if a faster AI turn would be let's say required for marketability, is to reduce the AI quality to increase speed and I believe this is what you would be referring to in terms of dumbing down the AI. Right now this is all theory as I really don't know how long an AI turn would take at a 148,000 hexes (we've never done it and I don't even know if wargame even exists at that scale to use as a guide), and while there would be some that wouldn't mind a 30 minute AI turn (potentially longer at times later in the game), I suspect it would be hard to market and sell in a way that would make the game cost effective. It's all conjecture at this point, and if it was trivial to make a game that big I would love to even know myself, I just wanted to reiterate that the game as it currently stands has not taken any shortcuts to speed up the AI. At times I had some routines that did this, but as the game has evolved, I've managed to disable those and work around the issues by continually optimizing the code to improve processing times.

pjg100 -> RE: Support the Devs, don't like the game (12/15/2018 3:12:54 AM)
My initial take was similar to that expressed by many members of the community, i.e., didn't like the new map scale. However, after playing into it a little I came around. The larger scope of the game seems to work quite well with counter density. In addition, it actually seems to deliver an experience with a little more fidelity to RL outcomes in some ways than did WIE. FREX, in WIE my impression is that most players don't seriously commit the BEF to France, but I think in WAW the BEF could actually make a material difference to how long France holds out so perhaps players will make more of a commitment. I also like the way the game forces the US and UK to pay more attention to naval research and build strategy than does WIE. Not saying I think it delivers a more enjoyable experience than does WIE, just a different one that is enjoyable in its own right.

Numdydar -> RE: Support the Devs, don't like the game (12/15/2018 1:24:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater Right now this is all theory as I really don't know how long an AI turn would take at a 148,000 hexes (we've never done it and I don't even know if wargame even exists at that scale to use as a guide), and while there would be some that wouldn't mind a 30 minute AI turn (potentially longer at times later in the game), I suspect it would be hard to market and sell in a way that would make the game cost effective. Have you looked at War in the Pacific [:)] Or World in Flames? And there are other games as well. Not trivial. But it would be a great seller to have a PTO that actually conveys the true scale of that theater without having to fire up War in the Pacific. The current scale does not do that imho. Which of course is why there are so few games that cover the entire world as the PTO throws everything thing else out of whack. Europe is made smaller so the PTO map is manageable (which is what has been done here) or Europe is at a good scale which means the PTO is a lot bigger (which is what I was hoping for). I fired up AoD just to make sure I remembered things correctly [:)] (I did lol). The map in AoD is definitely larger than WaW. I know you did a comparison between all the games in terms of spaces, but at this scale just 1 hex/square can mean a huge difference. You already have the Europe map done from WiE. So would it really be that hard to do the rest of the world [X(] ? Kidding aside, you have quite a few people that could help you with a bigger map. That is what happened with War in the Pacific Admirals Edition when the map went from 60 miles per hex to 45. The community helped make that happen. So you could throw a bigger map together and ask the community to help make it accurate. So I would not feel that this was something you had to do all on your own.

BillRunacre -> RE: Support the Devs, don't like the game (12/15/2018 1:42:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Numdydar I also totally get that making the map bigger would be a major effort. Which is why I suggested to make a Gold version of the game [:D] Should only take a month or two right lol? You might be interested to know that designing the War in Europe map took me the best part of a year.

BillRunacre -> RE: Support the Devs, don't like the game (12/15/2018 1:45:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Numdydar Well we will need to disagree then. The transit boxes covered areas of the oceans where there was no chance of intercept by the Axis. Plus you could still intercept ships moving to and from the boxes so I really do not consider it game breaking as you do. I see no need to laboriously move ships around long distances when I do not have to. If I really felt like doing that, I'd just play War in the Pacific lol. I used to think the same about transit boxes, but having played Axis during World at War, I have found that long distance patrols can be a good thing, particularly if you encounter enemy transports that weren't expecting you to be there. [:)] So for anyone playing me, there are no parts of the world where the Allies should feel safe from the Axis. When playing the other side, I use Naval Cruise to move Allied shipping and transports around, keeping them as close to ports as possible so that their supply losses are minimal.

Searry -> RE: Support the Devs, don't like the game (12/15/2018 2:01:48 PM)
The game is just odd. Hexes cover massive areas, 1 month turns and the scale of units is big from corps to armies with some exceptions and oddities like rocket or heavy artillery or AAA etc(you'd think all of these would be in corps or armies). 1 unit per hex restriction. Air units can be destroyed by ground units. Research costs the same resource as units?(!!??) I get that it's easier to play than most of this type of grand strategy so maybe it's a good introduction for some people to this genre. It's definitely much much better than HOI4 in most ways. The AI hates you, which is good. There's definitely potential in this series if people want to buy it and the developers want to spend more time on new games. It needs a bit more complexity, smaller hexes, and getting rid of the oddities mentioned, but then it's probably a completely different game. Very mixed feelings. [&:]

Numdydar -> RE: Support the Devs, don't like the game (12/15/2018 2:10:50 PM)
I have done the same even with the transit boxes. I just don't consider it game breaking to have ships travel like that. I actually prefer it as it is less stuff I have to move. You can also look at transit boxes as target locations for patrols as something 'nice' will show up there at some point [:)] But am I really going to take a sub as Germany (much less several of them when each counter is supposed to represent several subs) into the Indian Ocean on a regular basis? No (assuming no Suez capture etc.) Yes Germany did send one sub to Japan (again one, not a bunch of them) but that was definitely the exception. So I would not design a game around not having transit boxes just on the rare chance I might sink a ship or two over the course of a game. In closing � It is your game not mine You are the developer after all So it is not up to me to decide You after all will make the final call

elmo3 -> RE: Support the Devs, don't like the game (12/15/2018 2:13:29 PM)
I used to love the old SPI games due to their heavily detailed rules, complex mechanics, and lots of "chrome". They felt like good simulations. But over time my poor old (age 67) brain just doesn't want to deal with all that complexity any more. To me the SC games are a nice balance between level of detail and playability. They're not perfect, so yes there are things I would change, but the games give a good feel for the war and they're fun with the latter being the main reason I play any game.

budd -> RE: Support the Devs, don't like the game (12/15/2018 4:20:47 PM)
I don't know, seems like some folks were expecting a different game. SC had been around for a few games now and they all follow the same framework, game play, so not sure anyone should be to surprised. Seems like anytime a new game comes out these days folks point out first thing what a game isn't. Not a big fan of the transit boxes beaming effect, i like the cat/mouse at sea. The cruise mode for me really negates the need for them, i'm guessing there were in the original global because there was no cruise mode. I do wonder though how hard it would be to make the transit boxes a game option at start, "on" they show on map, "off" they don't. Always a tough spot for developers, can't please all the people, all the time and just because some folks are more vocal than others doesn't mean there the majority.

PvtBenjamin -> RE: Support the Devs, don't like the game (12/15/2018 4:29:38 PM)
I just think the map is to small, the Atlantic is like the Long Island Expressway. Maybe I'm just used to SC Europe. I played the SC2 Global game a lot, was that map this small?

xwormwood -> RE: Support the Devs, don't like the game (12/15/2018 4:46:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Numdydar I have done the same even with the transit boxes. I just don't consider it game breaking to have ships travel like that. I actually prefer it as it is less stuff I have to move. You can also look at transit boxes as target locations for patrols as something 'nice' will show up there at some point [:)] But am I really going to take a sub as Germany (much less several of them when each counter is supposed to represent several subs) into the Indian Ocean on a regular basis? No (assuming no Suez capture etc.) Yes Germany did send one sub to Japan (again one, not a bunch of them) but that was definitely the exception. So I would not design a game around not having transit boxes just on the rare chance I might sink a ship or two over the course of a game. In closing � It is your game not mine You are the developer after all So it is not up to me to decide You after all will make the final call quote: areas, 1 month turns a Germany did pretty much more. It sent even CAs into the Indian Ocean, and most of all auxiliary cruiser / commerce raiders all around the world. There is a reason why the Graaff Spee scuttled itself in Argentina, and not near Iceland or the Orkney Isles. The german CAs were even designed for long distance actions.

budd -> RE: Support the Devs, don't like the game (12/15/2018 4:46:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin I just think the map is to small, the Atlantic is like the Long Island Expressway. Maybe I'm just used to SC Europe. I played the SC2 Global game a lot, was that map this small? The original global was smaller, to small for my taste. The global AOD map was bigger but with transit boxes and no cruise mode. I'm playing the stock 39 campaign and the mod 39 campaign at the same time, only on turn 2 so haven't played a bunch but so far the size of the Atlantic isn't bugging me. Cat and mouse is one thing but hide and seek is another, i liked the increased chance for contact with the reduced size.

PvtBenjamin -> RE: Support the Devs, don't like the game (12/15/2018 6:00:43 PM)
I'll probably stick to the European game. I do wish Hubert & Bill great success with this product tho. They have created a world class franchise in SC that they support relentlessly. We should all be respectful and hopeful the game is a success.

Primarchx -> RE: Support the Devs, don't like the game (12/15/2018 6:09:47 PM)
I don't have any previous SC experience and I'm really enjoying this game. It's sort of like a more detailed Panzer General...

PvtBenjamin -> RE: Support the Devs, don't like the game (12/15/2018 6:34:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Primarchx I don't have any previous SC experience and I'm really enjoying this game. It's sort of like a more detailed Panzer General... SC is great. Its easy to pick up & hard to master. PG2 was also a great game, this is much more complex.

Hubert Cater -> RE: Support the Devs, don't like the game (12/16/2018 1:47:42 PM)
quote: Have you looked at War in the Pacific [:)] Or World in Flames? And there are other games as well. Thanks I can't seem to find the number of hexes for War in the Pacific, but it looks like World in Flames is about 70,000 hexes in total. So a bit bigger than our current release, but about half the size of the desired scale of 148,000 hexes. IIRC, World in Flames also doesn't have an AI. quote: I fired up AoD just to make sure I remembered things correctly [:)] (I did lol). The map in AoD is definitely larger than WaW. I know you did a comparison between all the games in terms of spaces, but at this scale just 1 hex/square can mean a huge difference. Yes and no as in mainland Europe and in the USSR our current release arguably has more land map hexes, while in China a bit less, but as mentioned previously the Chinese portion has a lot of unplayable hexes in AoD compared to WaW and only due to a difference in design. They are different games and also difficult to directly compare due to tiles versus hexes, but glad to hear you still enjoy AoD as we really did enjoy making that game at the time. quote: You already have the Europe map done from WiE. So would it really be that hard to do the rest of the world [X(] ? Kidding aside, you have quite a few people that could help you with a bigger map. That is what happened with War in the Pacific Admirals Edition when the map went from 60 miles per hex to 45. The community helped make that happen. So you could throw a bigger map together and ask the community to help make it accurate. So I would not feel that this was something you had to do all on your own. It may be interesting to know that all of our Global maps were community designed maps, and our latest was designed by David Stoeckl who also designed the original Global Gold map. The modding community and the ease of use and power of the game Editor has definitely created a win win situation for some of our releases and while it is very unlikely that either Bill or I would work to develop a monster map at this point, as Bill mentioned the War in Europe map took well near 1 year to develop, we have never been adverse to taking a serious look at quality maps that have come our way. Essentially if someone, or a team, were to design a release quality monster map at the War in Europe scale, it would be very likely to see the light of day as an official package if all went well. [8D]

Numdydar -> RE: Support the Devs, don't like the game (12/16/2018 3:09:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater It may be interesting to know that all of our Global maps were community designed maps, and our latest was designed by David Stoeckl who also designed the original Global Gold map. The modding community and the ease of use and power of the game Editor has definitely created a win win situation for some of our releases and while it is very unlikely that either Bill or I would work to develop a monster map at this point, as Bill mentioned the War in Europe map took well near 1 year to develop, we have never been adverse to taking a serious look at quality maps that have come our way. Essentially if someone, or a team, were to design a release quality monster map at the War in Europe scale, it would be very likely to see the light of day as an official package if all went well. [8D] That is good to know. As that is exactly how the map in War in the Pacific AE came about. As a large number of people thought the original 60 miles/hex did not provide enough detail. Believe it or not, I was not one of them lol. So a community team got together and completely redid the map to 45 miles/hex (along with a massive number of other changes) and in the process transformed the game. If enough people here want a larger map, then maybe the same thing can happen with your game. I will say it is pretty awesome that you would consider incorporating something the community did into your game officially. As that is totally different from Steam Workshop or anything like that. Pretty awesome Hubert [:)] Just another reason I buy everything you make lol.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.703125