StellarRat

I think Scott has a good point. Adding features is probably not worth the time right now. Personally, I'd pay for an expansion or new release with better graphics, a smarter AI, positional tactics, more terrain, and some new "official " units like helicopters, special forces, engineers, etc...One thing I'd really like to see is some battle animation that gives me some idea of why the battle was won or lost. What I don't want to do is micro-manage stuff. If I want that I'll play a different game. Like the fact that the computer handles most details but you still get a lot of strategy elements.

I'm surprised about Direct2Drive's response since they carry a ton of small/old titles many of which aren't nearly as good as EOS (including some really old DOS games.) You might try asking again maybe someone else will review your request and have a different opinion. On the art stuff, if you have a college or even a high school around where you are you might be able to get a graphic arts or animation artist intern for a term or two that can do the work for free. They need real work experience and you need low cost/free help. We used to do this at my old company and it is a good deal for both parties. The biggest thing to keep in mind is that you have to be willing to teach and spend time with your intern. If you can't do that you're cheating yourself and your student. Don't expect a lot of production from a beginner, however, if you keep the assignments small in scope you might get some really good stuff to build on. Have you considered using actual satellite/aerial imagery for your maps? It looks pretty darn cool. This seems like it would be an easy thing to do. Once you have a base set you can always cut and paste as necessary. Personally, the unit images mean little to me as long as I can tell what type of unit it is. I use NATO symbols on most games when I have a choice.

Steam might be a good route. I won't buy anything from them because of a previous experience I had with their copy protection / DRM system, but they do sell a lot of games including the newest CIV. I imagine that people buying from them know what they are getting themselves into, so it's no skin off your back. There are other sites I do buy from online, Direct2Drive is the best IMO so I'd look at them, too. I also have purchased games online directly from the publisher/developer. A lot of games are sold through multiple outlets online, so you should make sure you don't get into any exclusive distribution schemes. Try to broaden your outlet base. Even though Battlefront sells the best wargames they aren't the most widely known distributor. As far as getting the word out about EOS I have no experience in the advertising world. I know it's expensive though! Have you looked into Google or Yahoo sidebar type ads? One other thing you might consider is getting some art and screen design types to "sex up' the looks of EOS. The game system and code are great, but it could use some more art/special effects work. I know this sounds shallow but looks do sell games. I'm a programmer, but I can't draw for crap and I admit it.

I can see adding mines to the game, but I don't think sonobuoys are a good idea. Sonobuoys need to be monitored by a ship or plane in the area they are laid and they have a short lifespan. Since EOS doesn't have a fixed time or range scale the lifespan issue and monitoring become weird. On the default map even one turn of life would be way too long. I much prefer planes and ships that can see subs as you can assume they use sonobuoys as part of the detection process.

The whole process can be automated by sending each players file to a server, having it calculate the results and returning an updated file to each player. The server knows when all the players has submitted the turn so it just calculates when once that happens. This a very robust system since nothing can happen until both players files are received in good order. Plus you can stop the game while saving each players work locally so they don't lose what they've done in a new turn. This how Dominions works. Kind of a hybrid of what you want and real time.

Well in "real life" harbors are usually heavily defended with ASW and shore batteries. I suggest you add some aggressive destroyers and artillery to your city.

Crap, I guess I won't play CIV anymore....

I guess my take is that if AI isn't ripping me off and realistic tactics work against it I'm OK with it for now. I could see most land based units, planes and surface ships being easy to find by spies and civilians reporting. It's pretty hard to hide an armored division. I can justify it in my head. However, the fact that subs are hunted down like dogs by the AI because it knows where they are at all times galls me to no end. Subs have always been hit and run weapons and that just doesn't work right now nor do my SF units that are always seen by the AI and blown up by artillery when they are hiding the middle of a mountain range with no other enemies around.

Isn't modifying the production rates to make the AI more challenging the same as giving it a cheat? It's not using the same rules as the human at that point.

I doubt you are going find one that doesn't cheat in some way. In all likelyhood you just won't know it. Brit is doing an awesome job supporting this game. I'm sure he will take care of any blatant AI cheats. Most other developers probably wouldn't even discuss how the AI "works" with their customers because of the huge amount of cheating most of them do. They really don't care about post release improvements other than fixing bugs that cause crashes. The AIs are lousy because main focus in most games these days is fancy graphics and sound to impress the teenyboppers. Even unit and play balance and actual game system take second place in most games. If you look at ratio of programmers to artists and sound engineers on most modern games you'll see its over 7 to 1 in favor of the non-programming jobs. That should tell you something.

It is possible, but its a huge hunk of work to make one that plays decently. I did a space war game with no terrain (obviously) or strategic components (simulated individual battles only) it took two of us working about 12 hours a week on it for a year to do just the AI. It didn't cheat and could beat humans including us about half the time. I'd hate to think how long it would take to do the same for EOS when there are so many other elements besides tactical combat to consider.

My system does handle units that can see subs. In fact thats all I wanted it to handle. Maybe you didn't read it carefully enough. Even units that can see subs have very limited range that they can see them in. I really don't care too much if the computer uses its current system to spot units other than subs and other units designated as "invisible". For units other than invisible types it doesn't affect game play nearly as much, but for subs and special forces it pretty much invalidates their reason to exist.

There are many, but I'll name a few. 1. It has a perfect memory. This is useful in locating and remembering maps and unit locations. This is also one of main reasons I'm saying that it actually has an advantage in hunting hidden units. And it's not going to forget to check something or fail to issue important orders like a human could do. 2. It will never do something irrational out of spite or because it's had a couple beers. 3. It won't screw up and move or attack the wrong unit or wrong place because of a slip on the mouse or a wrong key press. 4. It can calculate the odds instantly before it attacks based on whatever it knows and decide if it's a good situation. Provided it has a good formula for this it won't take unnecessary risks. 5. It doesn't get distracted from it's objectives. This is one the principles of strategy. Of course, this only helps if it has good code to determine what it's objectives should be. If programmed by an expert an AI can really do a pretty good job against a human. Actually computer game "AIs" are actually more accurately called expert systems because they don't learn. A true AI is a learning system. The ones in games generally follow a formula that a good human player would use to win, but they don't "learn" new tactics to defeat an enemy.

Actually the AI could easily respond to invisible units without cheating. Probably better than a human handles the situation. I've written software that does this. Computers have advantages over humans in many areas. You write the AI to use those and they make up for some of what the computer is poor at.

I back Rich on this. What is the point of having subs or other units that are supposed to be invisible like SEALS if the AI knows they are there? Right now, against the AI you might as well use surface ships and regular infantry. Cranking up the defense for hidden units to simulate partial invisibility leads to all kinds unrealistic results like a sub destroying an entire enemy fleet or some Green Berets killing an entire division of tanks. It makes spy or scout type units impossible to simulate. I think this could fairly easily programmed by only letting the AI know the last actual sighting or attack of subs (or SF) then having it move there with some random offset to allow it to be unpredictable. If it actually gets within real sight range it could move to attack and call in any other units that have movement remaining to attack. The hidden type units could be "flagged" as hidden and only those units would have this special procedure applied to them.

Wow! Am I confused now. If I create a unit with a sight range of zero in the rules editor the AI doesn't know its there or does it? Or is there some special coding for subs? I created a special forces unit with a sight range of zero just like sub but they got hammered by any artillery that was in range. But you also said the AI knows where all enemy units are....Help :-)

Brit....in WW II subs were only sighted on the surface by planes using radar, eyeballs and sometimes radio direction finding equipment. Modern sub hunting planes can find submerged subs using sonobuoys and MAD. During both periods plane are equipped to kill spotted subs. There is no chance that a modern nuclear sub would be sighted by a WW II plane as they nearly never surface. In WW II subs spent most of their time on the surface.

Brit, I thought you said the AI could see all units?

I would really like it if there was a setting that auto repaired units that were set to run a repeating pattern. That way my recon units would stay home if damaged and resume their assigned duties after repairs are completed.

The AI always knows where subs are, but suppose it would be useful when playing against humans.

If infantry sits in one place long enough it builds forts automatically.

I gave the ships anti - missile ability at level 3 or 4 and higher. They can shoot down missiles on the way in. If you're a custom ruleset you might be seeing proper results.

Speaking of microphones...I did notice that Teamspeak was pretty much useless due to long delays in the other Guy hearing what I was saying. I ran the teamspeak server on my machine. Also the in game comms were fouled up too from time to time. They did tend to work better though. I didn't experience this problem ever while running a Dominions host. I've played many games with Teamspeak running with no problems. But we've had problems even without using comms. Sometimes the client receives a totally black map. Other times the game dies while calculating a turn and you can't recover on client side.

My friend and I have had the same type of problems. I too am running Windows 7 64 bit Home Premium. I think it may have something to do with the OS and game code and connection all combined. We have had better results when my friend is at different hotels (he is on the road a lot.) I think the game code is not too forgiving of poor connections. I've been able to host other games with much less trouble. Also, I've noticed we had less troubles with older versions of the game. I think the fact that the connection goes through the EOS server also adds another point of possible trouble. I host Dominions III on my machine to my friend and it is rare that we have any problems. That game is direct host (you run an entirely separate session as the host and connect to yourself to play) and you can even choose the port you want to use. I think adding some logging abilities to the host and client would probably go a long way to solving these problems.

I'm giving you a big hats off Brit. I've been playing a different game for a few weeks and last night I patched and started playing a new EOS game. The interface and other improvements are VERY GOOD. Everything is so smooth now! Good work!