Jump to content

Recommended Posts

AoC / AoD are perfectly legid expansions.

There are new units. Even the press awards both expansions good grades.

To label AoC / AoD as "fraud "is simple and plain ridiculous.

Everybody has the right to criticize, of course. I myself offered often criticism here.

But when one start to spread lies like "fraud", than he has left criticism, and entered malicious mud-slinging.

If the forum moderators need a reason to close this thread or to ban this user, i'm more than willing to take the blame for it. Do it, i'm all in favor.

When i think back at the wild days, i'm pretty sure that Kuni and JJR were banned for less. At the very least they were always funny and trying to make the game better.

I quite agree Klaus and have asked the moderator to look at this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The good thing here is that at least some people do become aware that there is a prob with these add-ons; is the AI better: I don't think so; are there new units; no, some which could be were already in the free mods; in summary, where is the work for which we customers have to pay? - in conclusion, all of this is "easy money" to get from people the conceptors not care about. ( The Franco Prussian war which is free is far more interesting )

As far as the language barrier is concerned it's on your side guys.

Michel,

I think most people who have contributed to this thread are trying to be reasonable and respectful. Some are starting to get a little ticked off with you, and as someone who has been around on this forum for awhile, and who has worked with Hubert and Bill for a number of years, I have to tell you---these are the last guys who would try to take "easy money" as you call it.

You need to rethink your approach, in my opinion. I have asked the forum moderator to look at this thread, and see what he or she thinks. My own opinion is that for a guy who has only made 16 or so posts, you are going about things the wrong way. As my friend Xwormwood said in his post, everyone has the right to criticize. But your accusations and insinuations take away all credibility from anything you have to say about the game.

Criticism is great. Slander---not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michel while before years ago I thought similar to how you did.

"Make it right the 1st time!!"

Now I am on the design side of games and not the playing side. I am the designer of AoC/AoD.

Writing games is no easy task especially complex strategy games. You simply can't start with the top of the list of everything everyone wants and expect it to work. The inconsistencies and issues that come up would have so many permutations that it would be very difficult to correct within a reasonable amount of time.

If you introduce 100 different variables going from simple combat values to complicated supply issues that involve complex mathematics all at once you are just asking for trouble. You have to start with basics and work up. Just like building a house with a foundation, then adding in later.

I also know programming to an extend and programming a bug free workable game is not easy.

So when you combine design, programming, modeling, and testing it takes a lot of effort to get it right. You have to start with a base model and slowly adjust it up when the foundations are set. Add in more features as you go a long.

When I became involved with the design team at Fury I assisted them in developing new ideas to improve the game significantly. These ideas took time for me to develop as I played the game and made some realizations. I've been playing wargames for 30 years and all that experience came into play. There are a lot of features I had direct impact on that weren't there before.

That the scenarios with each product are not copies of old scenarios from other games they previously released. There is no grand Russian campaign, no alternate history scenarios, no invasion of malta, no solomons campaign in any game of the past. Only the global game has gotten larger. I think the current model of the global game is pretty amazing. It offers tons of decisions and pieces on a map the size of common global board games like World in Flames or ETO/PTO.

Also you can always modify it yourself. When I got SC2 I didn't like the scale or map size of the World At War campaign so I created Brute Force to my liking.

As for the A.I. it has improved. I notice it because I script the A.I. for all the scenarios I developed and had direct influence on its behavior. Programming A.I. isn't easy in the least. It takes lots of testing and time to get it right running hundreds of simulations from Beta Testers who give lots of hours and hard work to help us. I love scripting A.I. and I have a nack for developing new routines make it better.

When I writing the Brute Force mod I gave the A.I. 16 different global strategies to pursue and they adjusted based on circumstance.

Tell me which other game in history has ever developed an A.I. that does that?

Point being PC wargames have been around since the 1980s and no one has truly come up with a learning competitive A.I. in a complex multi-variable game? Why? It because its damn hard. I was shocked to find I was the 1st person to develop a multiple grand strategy for a WW2 global game. It was due to the excellent scripting and internal A.I. for the SC2 engine.

The fact I could develop it on Hubert's engine shows you how powerful it is. If you don't enjoy the scenarios mod them. If you don't like the pieces, change them. That's what I did.

Already we have a long list of features for SC3. I'm fairly excited to get working on the next system myself.

Good post Al. And I agree with all you have said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...