Innocence

Any luck with this? I've agreed before, and still agree about Steam. Bought tons of games on pure impulse on Steam, and they do carry vast numbers of indie games. Steam's even self-promoting, ie. friends see which games you own and play, buy the same games, then their friends see what they're playing etc.

Sorry Brit, but no - it's exactly the other way around (unless we're talking a major hyped title, like StarCraft II and like). If you try out Impulse and Steam you'll see first-hand why these systems generate extra sales. I've done impulse-buys on both platforms after watching the review videos - the "Buy now" link is never far away Steam, being my personal favorite, is more than a distribution system. It's a online gaming community, including Friend's list, ingame chat, ingame awards system and more. This means, you'll see which games your friends are playing and how they're doing (awards, virtual medals ), enticing you to buy the same games to play with them. It's very much a "X-Box Live" community for non-console gamers.

As far as I know, in Europe this only goes for Germany. Replacing it for Germans is fine by me, but please don't let the rest of Europe suffer for their censorship.

Actually Warspite2 already suggested this in the 22nd post in this thread: I agree - with both of you

Sound like a good idea as a "Quick start" option. Would make the initial game more interresting. True, but it's sorts of a Catch 22: The multiplayer market for turn based games is very small because the traditional (IGo-UGo) implementation totally sucks with more than two players, and few developers want to develop a good multiplayer experience since the market is very small.

Actually that's a good idea, although stealth-units like submarines should still be hidden. Imagine 10+ players at LAN party playing Empires of Steel with this option on and a projector showing the entire map and action on a big screen. Once all turns are submitted eveyone sits back together and watch the action on the big screen, laughing, cursing and shouting.

Ditto. Got a three and a one year old, wife, house, garden, work etc. I'm lucky if I get a few consecutive gaming hours every week (usually it's very "on, off"), and if I do it's never scheduled. PBEM is the only multiplayer experience that'll work for me.

I agree - I've bought several games on impulse on Impulse . Question is of course how large a percentage they charge.

Actually the only reason I can't "sell" EoS to my frieds is that PBEM still isn't full-featured - so I'm just waiting for that to happen Once PBEM is ready for prime time EoS will go from being yet-another-turnbased-wargame into offering a very rare multiplayer experience! I really think PBEM (or simultaneous turnbased multiplayer?) is the feature which should be touted the most - it's something that 99,9% of the other games do not have. The trick is to make players understand why they need it, that this is a feature which actually makes multiplayer turnbased games playable, and that that's what sets EoS apart from other games. Most players simply do not understand the concept (being as rare as it is)

I suppose if the server interface is exposed, EoSM clients could be written in any language (ie. Java, Python) and thus be available on any device able to run said language. You wont be able to play your turn on the device, but you could easily respond to messages, trades and diplomacy anywhere you can get an Internet connection. This type of online functionality is what is needed to bring turn based strategy games out of closed forums and lobbies and into the new millennium.

Fanfreakintastic!!!!

THANKS FOR ADDING PBEM - even if it's still rudimentary This one came right out of the blue, I was under the impression that it wasn't even being worked on! Off to post the good news )

Sounds like an advanced kind of Civilization Pitboss game hosting. I like it

Is PBEM (or a Dedicated Host utility) still on the roadmap? :confused: Seems like every week people are complaining that "noboby's available for multiplayer", which is hardly surprising since noone ever sits around waiting for a 5+ hour game session to begin. Well maybe in a testlab, but not in real life For multiplayer to be a success, there needs to be an option to plan and submit orders out-of-sync with other players being online.

I think making effects of strategic bombing and shelling of cities and resources temporary, would be a good thing, ie. production in city and resource output will be affected the turn it's bombed, but will then return to normal. Historically casualties due to population/terror-bombing are fairly small. Targetting production centres is by far more effecient.

It'd be nice if it did. Would make strategic bombers more useful.

Amen Generally I've had much better experience with support from indie programmers than larger companies, for example Taleworlds (Mount & Blade), Sean O'Connor (Slay!) and Slitherine (Conquest). The only larger developer who show genuine dedication is Blizzard (WarCraft, StarCraft, Diablo etc.), though few support their games as badly as 4Head Studios/JoWood (The Guild)

Blimey, you're efficient

I'm getting the exact same results. Just tried disbanding the group of 7-8 UAV's into individual units and sending them in - instant bloodbath. Two infantry, one artillery destroyed, 2 UAV's damaged. I've got a savegame (835Kb compressed). Interresting thing is watching the replay of the previous 7 turns: 6 turns of the UAV group attacking without effect, then this last turn of total carnage.

I agree it's a very simplified view on ship roles, which is why it fit's EoS very well: If the roles changed with technology it would lead to a more complicated game. Yes, there's no reason why advanced BBs,CRs,DDs and Subs shouldn't be able to carry missiles too.

Yes, and the roles for different ships need to be defined more clearly, to motivate building different ships/combined arms. Battleships are floating artillery platform (useful for land bombardment), they're strong against all other surface ships, but weak against Subs and planes. Cruisers are strong against planes and Destroyers, but weak against Subs and Battleships. Destroyers are fast and strong against Subs, but weak against Battleships, Cruisers and planes. Subs are strong against Battleships and Cruisers, but weak against Destroyers and planes.

Ehm, there is no way of 'reloading turns' in a PBEM game when using the wego system (as EoS does). You send in your orders and receive the result from the host. Reloading your old turn wouldn't help. @Moon: Stars! games rarely lasted >100 turns, so that might be a problem as you say. The thing is, it's next to impossible to coordinate more than 3 people meeting online at an exact time, so there really needs to be an alternative asynchronous way of playing EoS for real multiplayer to be viable, if not PBEM then an online stand-alone EoS server (like PitBoss) where the players can log in and do their turns at different hours.

Problem is, this would either require the host to have an online server running 24/7, or require the developer/publisher to set up an online server solution for benefit of the players. The former isn't practical for the majority of players (at least not until electricity becomes free ) The latter would likely require pay-to-play, which would kill the game. If the game was a major cash-cow (like Blizzard's StarCraft) I guess the publisher might offer the service for free, but EoS is unfortunately a niche game.

The problem isn't really meeting up - the problem is, as Hawk writes, that the game takes a very long time to play, a commitment which most people is unable to fullfill. Really, the only solution to fully functional multiplayer is PBEM - as we've discussed before

Have you considered a change so that damaged units with "Sentry until repaired" orders ignore field orders? I hate having to change their field orders to 'none' when they're under repair, and change it back when they're fully healed. I've lost countless ships cause they attacked when they were repairing and very low on hitpoints.