Global Map

[The K Man]

Any screenshots of the new global map for Assault on Democracy?

Just curious how it compares to the other maps.

[Calculon]

Any screenshots of the new global map for Assault on Democracy?

Just curious how it compares to the other maps.

I second this. A screenshot where one closely could study details etc. If possible even included the initial setup fore the campaign, the order of battle.

[Big Al]

The main page for the expansion shows the map. It is 5x larger.

[xwormwood]

I second this. A screenshot where one closely could study details etc. If possible even included the initial setup fore the campaign, the order of battle.

click the link...

Btw: the Global Map looks awesome, the pictures are very much worth a look or two

[Calculon]

click the link...

Btw: the Global Map looks awesome, the pictures are very much worth a look or two

Thank you fore the answer. It do look awesome, the patience one has to have before the release is painful...

But what im looking fore is a detailed picture, where one can see a detailed setup fore the 39 campaign. Each unit identifable.

[Fintilgin]

It looks good, but why so much ice in the north? You could probably cut off the top 20% of the map with absolutely no loss to gameplay whatsoever. Especially because the distortion of the map projection means there are way more squares up there then there 'should' be.

Wouldn't cutting off some of that wasteland speed pathfinding and such? I know in earlier versions larger maps could cause speed issues.

Also, does the map finally scroll 'loop' like Civilization, or are we stuck with the (kinda kludgy) teleportation arrows?

[The K Man]

Thanks for the reply and links. Checked out the map and it looks pretty good. It was tough going from The Great War (WWII campaign's) map back to the old Global map.

I can live with the "arrows" on the maps for the scrolling, but it would be nice (in a global game) to scroll a loop like Civ. But my issue with the arrows (atleast in The Great War WWII campaign) is their locations. I preferred the first SC games where the arrows were located at the point in the map where you would be scrolling (if u could scroll). It bugs me in The Great War, if you want to take your guy out of Gibraltar and move him to Egypt via the Atlantic (not Mediterreanan) you have to move him north to the arrows in the middle of the Atlantic so he can go south around Africa. Makes no sense...IMO. Obviously in Global that shouldn't be an issue, since you should see the whole map, but I just hope any arrows that are there, make more sense.

[Bill101]

Hi K Man

In the WWI map for 1914 Call to Arms in Breakthrough there are some loop points south west of the Azores, circa 96,100.

I'll add them in to the Storm over Europe campaign's Breakthrough version too, as that's a good point.

[Hubert Cater]

Fintilgin,

The map still does not scroll continuously but this is something we will implement for SC3 when applicable.

[The K Man]

Thanks Bill & Hubert!

Look forward to the new games! Looks like a job well done by everyone.

[SeaMonkey]

We really are spoiled! I have tried various other games, of different scales, different mechanics, real time, shooters, etc. but I just keep coming back. I find every time I try a new game out, I end up comparing it to SC, and they never seem to stack up.

Really....I really do try, I give them a decent effort, but I just can't get past this SC creation, it's like a maelstrom, it keeps sucking you back in.

[Fintilgin]

Fintilgin,

The map still does not scroll continuously but this is something we will implement for SC3 when applicable.

I knew it was probably too much to hope for a major engine change like that, but I'm glad to hear it will be in SC3.

[Amadeus]

Really continuously? That will be a major improvement!

[Amadeus]

Sometimes I have the feeling in Multiplayer that some guys have a bit too much luck. Did you (Hubert/Bill) ever think about to improve the luck part of combat? I mean what if the game calculate all combat results in the very first turn? Sounds huge but seems easy to me. It could make SC less vulnerable for cheating. Here are my thoughts:

Every combat result has a +-1 outcome after calculating the battle. This is good and must not be changed! But, it should be easy to calculate +1, 0, -1 for the next 10, 15 or 20 upcoming battles as a (hidden) property for each unit. I mean you could give an unit a row of let's say 10 numbers in the first turn just about 10th Army (1, 3, 2, 3, 2, 1, 1, 2, 3, 1)

3 means +1 after calculating the battle

2 means +0 after calculating the battle

1 means -1 after calculating the battle

The pro is no gamer could change the row of numbers cause it is made in the first turn, means the second combat in my example for the 10th Army (1, 3, 2,...) is the number 3 and will be a +1 combat. Doesn't matter how often a game is loaded.

[Gorgin]

Anxiously awaiting the release of AoC/AoD. Have been going through the Screen Shots. I believe that your rule is to use the English spelling for place names, in which case the Belgian capital would be Brussels (with a final "s").

[Hubert Cater]

Hi Amadeus,

That's a nice idea and I think well suited for SC3.

Thanks Gorgin, this is already fixed

[pzgndr]

Did you (Hubert/Bill) ever think about to improve the luck part of combat? ... It could make SC less vulnerable for cheating.

There's a big difference between luck (good and bad) and cheating. The +/-1 variability in combat calculations is one of the strengths of the game system that provides replayability. I'd argue to keep this off the table. If cheating is the concern, then there are other things to look at.

[Big Al]

I gotta agree with pzgndr here. If you are playing with someone who is cheating the best solution is not to play with them.

[Amadeus]

There's a big difference between luck (good and bad) and cheating. The +/-1 variability in combat calculations is one of the strengths of the game system that provides replayability. I'd argue to keep this off the table. If cheating is the concern, then there are other things to look at.

Sure!! I argue to keep this as a must!!! It is one of the most important features in my eyes. If you play without cheating you will not see any different in playing. You play a combat and you will get a combat result with +/-1 variability. You play a second combat and you will get a next random +-1 result. The only different is when should the game calculate the combat in multiplayer. It is possible to do this in the first turn.

I don't understand pzgndr argument "provides replayability". Do you play a Multiplayer turn or game a second time? I never heard about this. Maybe for Singleplayer this feature is without need but in Multiplayer it could be very helpful. Hey Big Al, how do you know that you play with somebody who cheat the turns? The screen in the beginning of loading is not enough.

[Big Al]

They get "too" lucky. Things that are the normal usually start sliding off the scale of standard deviation. Most of the time the cheaters are 1st time opponents. I play poker for money and I can tell when I'm in a crooked game. Things aren't right. I've seen a vassal game for World in Flames where the other player was getting amazingly lucky in all the right spots. Or for SC2 your opponent always happens to be in the right spot with his naval units.

Also even with what you are recommending cheating becomes harder but more efficient.

I get my turn and figure out how many attacks I want to do. I just start attacking and watching the rolls. Now I see the sequence of all the rolls. Now I adjust my combats in order so the important ones get the +1 and not the -1. I'd do soak off attacks for the -1. I'd trade my crappy units attacking @ -1 for a lower expected value per MPP for my high power units with the +1 which will yield a higher expected value per MPP. Not to mention getting exactly what you want accomplished.

Look if someone is going to cheat, they will find a way to cheat. No system is full proof unless your turn is one and done that's it.

[Amadeus]

They get "too" lucky. Things that are the normal usually start sliding off the scale of standard deviation. Most of the time the cheaters are 1st time opponents. I play poker for money and I can tell when I'm in a crooked game. Things aren't right. I've seen a vassal game for World in Flames where the other player was getting amazingly lucky in all the right spots. Or for SC2 your opponent always happens to be in the right spot with his naval units.

Also even with what you are recommending cheating becomes harder but more efficient.

I get my turn and figure out how many attacks I want to do. I just start attacking and watching the rolls. Now I see the sequence of all the rolls. Now I adjust my combats in order so the important ones get the +1 and not the -1. I'd do soak off attacks for the -1. I'd trade my crappy units attacking @ -1 for a lower expected value per MPP for my high power units with the +1 which will yield a higher expected value per MPP. Not to mention getting exactly what you want accomplished.

Look if someone is going to cheat, they will find a way to cheat. No system is full proof unless your turn is one and done that's it.

That is not correct Big Al, sorry. With my way you can't cheat in this way because every unit has his own sequence. You start attacking and watch the rolls. OK, you restart but you can't get rid off the next random +1, 0 or -1 for a single unit. If you see a -1 for your strong tank you will get the -1 in the next combat. It is hidden but already calculate for that unit (not a sequence overall). All you can do is not attacking with the tank with a -1. You cannot win without attacking.

Another thing is with harder problems to cheat a game will become more attractive. Especially tournaments are easier to handle. In a tourny you cannot know everyone and even hide to play against someone. Maybe the system is not perfect but even now the numbers of replays are shown. Is this bad too? No, any better anticheating is good. Even when there is no visible disadvantage in multiplayer.

[xwormwood]

The game should track how often a "save game file" had been loaded.

Once the turn gets saved, the game should insert the information to the "save game file".

Today all you need to do is to re-download the file which was sent to you. With the fresh download you overwrite the old file, and the information how often it was loaded is ereased.

That is the problem.

If the game would have its own internal tracking tool and would write down every "save game file" that was loaded, than a player wouldn't have a chance to erase the information.

A multiplayer game gets started. The game engine created the internal tracking storage. The player plays the first turn and creates a safe game file. The game adds its own, hidden information to give the file a hidden name, no matter how the players has named his save game file.

The player sends the file to his multiplayer partner.

This player loads the turn. The game creates an internal tracking storage. Here it writes down that the file was loaded on <insert date and time>.

Assume that the 2nd players system crashes. He has to reboot, and loads the safe game file a second time. The game writes down that the file was loaded on <insert date and time>. In the internal storage list there are now two entries.

The player plays his turn and created his safe game file. The game add the informations from the internal storage.

The file gets returned to the 1st player.

This player loads his turn and check in a game menu how often the other player has loaded the file. He finds out the file was installed twice. Now he can ask his buddy why he reloaded the file.

[Bill101]

That is not correct Big Al, sorry. With my way you can't cheat in this way because every unit has his own sequence. You start attacking and watch the rolls. OK, you restart but you can't get rid off the next random +1, 0 or -1 for a single unit. If you see a -1 for your strong tank you will get the -1 in the next combat. It is hidden but already calculate for that unit (not a sequence overall). All you can do is not attacking with the tank with a -1. You cannot win without attacking.

Another thing is with harder problems to cheat a game will become more attractive. Especially tournaments are easier to handle. In a tourny you cannot know everyone and even hide to play against someone. Maybe the system is not perfect but even now the numbers of replays are shown. Is this bad too? No, any better anticheating is good. Even when there is no visible disadvantage in multiplayer.

One thing we would have to consider with your suggestion would be how to deal with new units, and the fact that units can be renamed.

At this stage I don't know whether or not it is possible, but it may be one option, like Xwormwood's about tracking the reloading of save files.

[Hubert Cater]

I think what Amadeus proposes could work and yes if we apply the same logic to new units then it should be fine. Renaming shouldn't be a problem if this is a per unit property much like the current strength is and so on.

The problem with a saved game tracking tool is that this also has to be stored somewhere and once you figure it out then it can also be hacked... I think the best solution here would just be a saved game server as the file is only located there and that could help to avoid some of these issues as they exist.

[xwormwood]

A saved game server could be hacked as well. Everything could be hacked.

I would like to suggest to ignore hacking for the time being.

Re-downloading is something my 7 year old nephew is able to do.

Hacking, well, that is a complete different story.

I'm not saying that Amadeus idea is bad. But it still would allow you to re-download to make a different move instead.