pzgndr

I provide a copy of my design notes with the mods. Most everything is explained in detail. If you are a veteran player of the old AH boardgames, it should all make sense. If not, well it's explained at any rate. Good luck. Thanks!

Italy does surrender once Allies land several units on the mainland. Germany needs to be prepared for this and have units in Italy once Allies start to make landings in Sicily. What difficulty settings are you using? I tried to shoot for balance at the Int +1 level, but I'm finding I need Expert +1.5 for challenging game. My latest update in progress has a few things to toughen it up some more. I thought I may have it out by now but I'm want to review my changes some more. Maybe by end of the month.

Just one, then we're done. You asserted without basis that continued AI development to implement full FOW in EOS was trivial. Knowing better, I stated that it would involve hundreds or thousands of hours of additional effort to accomplish what you wanted. Lots of time to recode the program, debug any issues that arose, playtest to verify AI performance was actually enhanced by the changes and not made worse, make necessary adjustments, etc. You disagreed. Brit finally responded to your call out and told you pretty much exactly what I had told you. I stated facts based on personal experience actually programming code and managing software development projects; you respond that it's all BS based on zero knowledge of what you're talking about. Are we missing something here? You know, wise man says, "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." But you still have a death grip on your shovel and you're still at it. Too funny. Go for it, keep digging if you want. LOL

Rich, for the record, it was never about your personal opinion. Regarding FOW, I agree with you that ideally the AI should play by the FOW rules and not be all-seeing. We would all love to have that in every game we play. Wouldn't that be nice? The problem was with your outrageous and incorrect assertions about things. Any rational response to you by me and others pointing out facts contrary to your assertions was met with hostile responses and personal insults by you, to everyone including the game designer. There is no excuse for your behavior here, none. End of story. Time to move on...

Brit, you have succeeded in making a fun game. Maybe not perfect, as nothing is perfect, but certainly good enough for most and worth a purchase. Thank you for that. It's a shame sales didn't reward your efforts. At this point you have nothing to apologize for. Best of luck in your new job and hopefully you will continue to provide some modest improvements to EOS when you can.

Call J.G. Wentworth?

ROTFLMAO. Someboby with zero computer programming experience dishing out advice (directives?), and refusing to listen to anything to the contrary. Too funny. This provides some comic relief to an otherwise obnoxious "discussion."

Shauny1987, Moon knows. The clock is ticking. It's not worth trying to discuss anything further on this thread.

It's way out-dated, by my old Strategy Guide for SC is still available at http://www.furysoftware.com/documents/SC-StrategyGuide-Rev1.pdf Much has changed, but some of the fundamentals have not...

This is so sad it's almost funny. Almost. The really sad thing is that any aspiring game developer who might be considering a jump into this niche market is observing an ugly side of the business. If your first effort isn't brilliant and perfect, be prepared to be abused. Cuz some kid who spent his lunch money on a toy wants it to be perfect. Ah well. No horse is too dead to beat. Rich, go ahead and lob a few more insults and get yourself in the last word. Enjoy yourself. I'll just sit back and watch....

Rich, I was your age for a whole year once. Maybe someday you'll grow up and act a little more mature than you have been here. If you think insulting folks and throwing temper tantrums is going to get you anywhere in life, then I recommend you check out a Dale Carnegie book or two. It is obviously a bigger deal than you are capable of understanding, and not going to happen for free. Sure Brit "could" do it, he could probably work himself into total bankruptcy and early death too, but it ain't gonna happen. Wake up and smell the coffee. Anything else, kid? This is entertaining in its own perverse little way. We all got time...

So what? "Fix" as in make a feature enhancement to implement FOW, or fix as in it was there and then he "broke" it so now he has to repair it? Methinks it is you spreading misinformation here, not I. Every game programmer would ideally like to provide the perfect computer opponent, but most maintain more realistic expectations. And so do most players for that matter. Why not find yourself some pbem friends?? See post #48. And what do you mean by "apparently" and "were"? My posts clearly show me as an SC Beta Tester, but you simply cannot accept anything provided to you in black&white? I know a thing or two about the challenges of AI programming and AI scripting based on everything Hubert Cater's been through since about 2002, as well as my own Advanced Third Reich mod efforts. It's not trivial. When Brit and others tell you point blank how challenging it is to reprogram an AI originally built to not use FOW, listen to them. And to think Brit will commit to hundreds or thousands of hours of additional effort for free for some piss-ant whining about "moral obligation" to provide some marginally better AI, you must be high on drugs. Too bad for you, eh? Please don't. Bye bye.

This comment from Brit leads me to believe the AI in EOS never used FOW, so it's not like Brit "broke" it and now needs to "fix" it. If he did have it using FOW at one point, then it should be relatively easy to turn it back on again and improve upon it from there. That does not appear to be the case? So, backfitting the AI to implement FOW would be a real challenge as Brit says. And not worth it at this point. The computer opponent provides decent gameplay as it is.

You're a real piece of work Rich. You still don't get it. Probably never will either...

Rich, this was Joel Billings' quote about WITE? The AI does know tactically and strategically where all enemy units are. How could it know strategically but not tactically? If you reread his comments, the AI still has to fly air recon to increase the detection levels of enemy units, which it already knows where they are, not to "find" them but to affect ground combat results. There's no "somewhat" about the AI knowing where all enemy units are in WITE. In case you're interested in knowing what you're talking about...

Well said. I'm sure Brit was well-intentioned when he commented about resolving the AI FOW issue. But that was then and this is now, sales have been sluggish, Brit is moving on, and that's real life. What's disturbing here are a couple of folks unwilling to accept this, insisting that Brit "owes" them hundreds or thousands of dollars at personal loss in additional development work for a $45 (now $20!) game. C'mon. In fairness, I also appreciate an AI that uses FOW. The Strategic Command series does this and it works well, but as stated this is really something that should be coded from the start and not backfitted later. Perhaps a fix could be implemented to restrict specific unit spottings, such as for subs and paratroops, etc, in response to some of the harsher criticisms. But this would have to be something Brit works on as a hobby development effort from now on. Far better to help encourage him to continue doing what he can when he can, rather than kicking him when he's down and making a fuss.

Rich, Joel Billings is one of the 2by3 Games developers, so if he says something then it's worth paying attention. Being one of the more successful wargame development teams in this niche market, it is instructive to see what they're doing that actually works versus idealistic expectations for something more. If AI performance is optimized with FOW disabled, then fine. That's not exactly a huge design flaw or game breaking bug, and not worth ranting about. What matters is whether the computer opponent(s) provide competent and challenging gameplay. IMHO, EOS provides decent gameplay. It's a fun little game. Again, thanks to Brit for doing what he's done so far with his limited resources to bring back an updated Empires game.

Sigh. Perhaps you guys missed Joel Billings comments on Dec 22? Here's the quote, to back up exactly what I said, for a game I do have and have started to play some: Maybe Joel doesn't know what he's talking about? You fellas can take it up with him. Enjoy!

Sorry, I do not plan to convert this again to WWI.

Oh please. Gary Grigsby's War in the East, just released, has an AI that is all-seeing and is getting a lot of positve comments. This was explained in some detail as to why it helps make the AI more competent and challenging, and doesn't help the AI all that much with grand strategy advantages anyways. Many games afford the AI a similar "game breaker" and still the AIs are criticized for not being competent enough. EOS does OK.

I am revisiting A3R with a modest update for the latest GC v1.04 patch: I had a pretty good playtest game running the 1942 campaign as Allies vs Axis AI on Expert +1.5. Lots of tough fights leading up to an Allied tactical victory in March 1945. I should have all four campaigns updated in the repository by next week.

This is unfortunate news. I did buy a copy of the game to help support development of niche wargames like this. The real-world problem of course is how small indy developers can produce wargames like this and survive? It's not like World of Warcraft with millions of copies sold and a huge revenue stream to support a staff and all sorts of fancy development. I give Brit credit for doing as much as he's already done. Thank you! And hopefully he will continue to make modest improvements as he can.

What Third Reich mod are you referring to?? Not my Advanced Third Reich mod; the only tanks eligible for research upgrades are the Russian 3-5 armor to 4-5. This has been a controversial topic since SC was released. For fun, it's OK. For more historical "accuracy", one technique is to restrict the number of research chits allowed per tech area to slow down research. Another technique is to restrict the max research levels for some techs. I've done both with Advanced Third Reich, which I prefer.

FOW should provide a chance for bad/inaccurate intel. Partially spotted units could have say a 5% chance of displaying a similar but different unit type:eg, infantry instead of armor, fighter instead of tac bomber, etc. Of course, once you move to attack you'd see the correct unit information, but having some chance of being surprised would be nice. I still play CM and appreciate this feature. Often my guys will spot a Tiger tank and that gets me thinking (or panicking) about how to deal with it, and then it turns out to be a Pz IV or Panther and I rethink my plans. Minor thing, but adds something to a game.

Correct. The manual fully explains the supply rules. HQ supply is based on their range from valid suppply sources, not other HQs. No chaining.