Kaliber
Posts: 52
Joined: 8/11/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sieben Elfriend
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lascar
[Many of the grognards have been playing this since it came out and have been able to identify many bugs and suggested improvements that Frank was willing to implement. It has become a more accurate and instructive simulation because of the efforts of the grognards and Frank so that both the grognards and persons like yourself can eventually reap the benefits of those efforts.
I appreciate the effort that the author and a coterie of dedicated players have put into a game on a neglected part of history, but after a year it has still not reached stability in terms of rules (I didn't mean code stability, boodaga; no, it doesn't crash to desktop). My point is that I paid $50 for a game that still has many ongoing bugs as a simulation (as witnessed by this very thread) and I am unwilling to put my precious gaming time into it while that is true. I play wargames (and I've been playing them since Avalon Hill published Tactic II) as much to educate myself as for entertainment, since I have found that playing out "what ifs" can help me understand the actual course of history. While I've read general and some specific histories, I don't know a lot about WW1. That's why I bought the game.
I apologize if my earlier post offended anyone. I'll come back in six months or so. After all, the game will still be new to me.
Hi,
I don't think anyone is offended by your post. It's simply a matter of understanding how the development of these games work. If there hadn't been a dedicated group of gamers tracking down bugs and fine tuning in terms of play balance, these games would have been way to pricey. Can you imagine Frank and Matrixgames hiring 5-10 people to play part-time?
The reason these games work is that there are dedicated gamers like Lascar who've been there right from the beginning tracking down bugs and making various suggestions to increase play balance and make GOA a better game. The most dedicated gamers are also generaly those who play most competitively, simply because they find it more entertaining. That's why we're debating about rail point costs and what not. And as long as you have the same version number, the different betas are compatible.
Everyone can of course be a "free rider" for as long as he wants. I, for example, have had EiA installed on my computer for a year, but still haven't played any PBEM, simply because the game still doesn't work very well. In time, I'll be there. I leave it to others to play the buggy versions.
Every strategy game has these issues - particularly those small-budget games like GOA who only appeal to a niche market. It would be interesting to see how many copies Matrix has sold. Of course, they won't disclose those figures, but in my opinion it doesn't allow them to have more than one man on the project.
Of course, there comes a time when it simply takes too long to get a final product. That's usually because it's a flawed game from the outset. I don't think it's the case for GOA. On the contrary, it's an excellent and very enjoyable game. It is of course a nuisance when there comes a new patch not compatible with the older patches, but then we just have to finish ongoing games before upgrading. It should a matter of two weeks at most.
|
Printable Version
RE: Problems with 1.30F - 
I should have differentiated between the two. Penalties for invading minor neutrals should be about the same. IMHO attacking yet another neutral would have been more evidence to Wilson of 'warmongering' by the CP. Scattershooting, anyone know what he thought of Rumania DoWing the CP in 1916? 
. i would also like to be able to see what level of war entry neutral powers are at in relation to the CP. Helps with planning ahead where to deploy reinforcements.
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread