Hubert Cater

For combat, having not released the game just yet I would also argue it is a bit pre-mature to judge as we have added quite a few tweaks and improvements to the game system, especially for WWI, but I am still interested to hear what you might have to suggest if you are willing to be a bit more specific.

For speed we have recently introduced a 'Quick AI' option that reduces the AI turn by 33%. With this setting on my machine, and remember that the main map is the biggest in the series so far, AI turns last on average about 4 minutes. For reference, I'm running a newer Quad Core Windows 7 64 bit machine. Granted the AI will not be quite as optimized as it would be without the 'Quick AI' option but I doubt many will notice the difference as it mostly has to do with the accuracy of distance checks (for movement calculations and so on), which when set to be less accurate, has dramatically improved AI speed as mentioned. Regarding multi-core and multi-threading it is something I've looked into and thought about over the years but there are some hurdles and it is not necessarily an easy and cost effective investment. Multi-Core development is still not yet supported for all programming languages, Eiffel which I use to develop Strategic Command will likely have this in a few years, and even for those that do, there is some debate on just how well they will handle it as the future looks to even more parallel computing, i.e. more cores. For example, the world was moving more towards Object Oriented programming as seen in C++, Java, and Eiffel, whereas the more traditional functional programming is arguably more appropriate in dealing with multi-cores due to the challenges that multi-cores present to the Object Oriented code. Here is a quick link on some of this discussion and there are plenty more to be found via searches on the net: http://softtalkblog.com/2010/08/04/are-existing-programming-languages-really-too-broken-for-parallel-programming/ For multi-threading, much like multi-cores, as mentioned before it is honestly very hard for me to say just how much of an improvement we would see (if I were to go that route) as much of the AI process for this style of turn based game is linear and not really parallel in nature. For example, if I could have the AI think about two things at once then there is arguably an advantage but it since it is IGOUGO it is very hard to find any real advantages. I could have it think about some items during your turn, but these basic items like various supply calculations all take very little time to process either way. What takes the longest for the AI to handle is pretty much the combat and reorganization phase, but since each combat calculation is dependent on the previous results I'm not sure how much time will actually be saved for the extra effort. As far as I've concluded, if we were discussing a real time game then taking advantage of multiple threads and multiple cores would show a much more significant improvement. So in the meantime, my focus has been simply to improve the existing algorithms and speed up the overall logic as it exists as much as I can because these are instantly noticeable in terms of any speed improvements game play wise. I hope this helps, Hubert

Hi Ant, To answer your question more specifically, we didn't purposefully exclude mountain troops, rather we just made use of the existing 'Special Forces' slot to include Marines for the WWI release. Was this an oversight? Perhaps, and not that we did it on purpose but with so much going into this project, so many details and facts and figures having been researched it is a bit surprising that we didn't think of everything so to speak Hubert

Hi Boudi, I honestly wish I could tell you more as they are a separate company from us. Probably your best bet is to contact them directly and inquire about the patch and when it might become available. They have a contact us page and that should help to get you started: http://www.excalibur-publishing.com/contact.htm Hubert

Thanks for the interest and I would say first half of 2011 is a safe bet

Sorry Amadeus, not for this release Hubert

Sorry to hear about the continued delay and as far as I know the patch is currently being tested on their end and when it is ready it should appear on this page much like the v1.03 patch did. http://www.excalibur-publishing.com/strategiccommandwwii.htm Hubert

Hi Flu, For probably the best explanation on how HQ linking works take a look at the Global Conflict online manual found here: http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_flippingbook&book_id=15&Itemid=388 Then go to page 32 and read the relevant sections and it should paint a better picture of how it all works. I hope this helps, Hubert

Hi Geofighter, Welcome back and yes all you would need is the v1.04 patch to get the game working up to the latest version. Not sure why it is asking you those questions after you download as it is a self extracting executable and should run automatically and install to the correct location after you double click. I'm wondering if the proper file is corrupted or not being downloaded from the server. Can you give me the exact name of the file with extension? Hubert

Hi Boudi, Sorry for the delay, we are sending it over to the retail partner and they should hopefully have it soon. Hubert

Thanks SeaMonkey and to clarify it is not the Editor that holds up development, rather the Editor actually speeds things up because a robust Editor allows one person to create and design campaigns while the other, i.e. me, can continue to develop the game code. Essentially it allows us to do two things at once but of course the only catch is that the Editor and other internal editing tools we use need to be built first. Granted some thinking into the game design can occur while the tools are being built but that is mostly my end so there is not much gain there either. I should also mention that the other nice thing is that once the proper tools are built we just release them as a part of the game so that others can pretty much do the same thing and create custom campaigns or custom games... the catch to all of this is, as previously mentioned, it just takes some time.

Thanks Arnivald and I strongly suspect you will enjoy this release

I think you are right about a few things here and I think I should also clarify one specific item, as this is perhaps not quite that apparent to everyone, that just because one game is announced or released doesn't mean that we are not also working on other ideas at the same time. For example, once Global was released, there was a discussion on what the next game should be and if it should be SC3, but in fairness just because the next game was not SC3 does not mean that we've ignored the idea or are incapable as some have suggested, but rather there were other items in the pipeline that needed to be completed first. Essentially it is no longer develop one game, stop and start another game sort of thing on our end because as mentioned we would have gone out of business a long time ago if that were the case. But that being said, starting an SC3 project is really going to be a full stop on all other projects because it is starting from scratch, i.e. current Editing tools cannot be used until they are redeveloped for a new engine, so as a business you need to make sure you have enough time and capital to take on a new adventure so to speak. In the end game development takes time and granted not everyone has the patience for that but there is really no way around it unfortunately But getting back to some of your design points I think you might have hit the nail on the head in terms of balancing out simple and consistent game play with what every gamer may prefer in the end. Would a game really be considered innovative if it just becomes an overly complicated mess to play? Those are tough questions to answer because up to now, and as much as we have added to the game, the SC series I would argue still falls into the category of 'It should have more of this or that' as opposed to 'It should not do this, it should do that' category. All this means is that we've tried to keep it simple and as abstracted as possible without it becoming too abstracted. But once you go down the road of making hard choices on what the game should be then you run the risk of pigeonholing yourself into limited camps of fans. We may not please everyone, that is for sure, but we have felt that we have pleased the majority and doing something new and as innovative as our first two major releases will take a lot of work on our end to get it just right, but we will certainly try when the time is right Hubert

Thanks for all the feedback and while we would love to have pleased everyone with this release announcement sometimes I guess, in reality, that is just not possible. Is a WWI game for everyone? Perhaps not, and I would argue that a WWII game is not for everyone either and what we do on our end is to simply try and make excellent games that hopefully a lot of players will enjoy. Now that being said, we are, on our end, quite pleased with the quality of the new WWI game in development and the initial first impression feedback from our recent Beta release to our testers has been fantastic and honestly better than we had hoped. Granted we are now getting into the more critical phase of our testing and feedback but this just ensures a great and well tested product will be delivered once we are finished. So, is this just a rehash of the SC2 engine? I can see why some may think so if you are just looking at things from the surface, but the truth is I don't even know what the SC2 engine is any more at this point. Why? Well, compare what was originally the SC2 engine released with Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg to what we have today and there have been so many major changes, not to mention AI improvements that they are arguably not even close. Are there similarities, sure, the latest game also uses tiles but just switching to something else or changing the graphics doesn't make it a new engine or a brand new and revolutionary game... I truly wish it were that easy! All this being said, do we still have plans to make big changes and come up with a brand new engine at some point? Sure, but to appreciate the development cycle a bit better, this particular release, i.e. WWI has been in development, and that includes the research and design, for almost 2 years now. In fact, this type of development length has been the same for almost all of our latest releases starting with the Pacific Theater, Global and now WWI. How is that possible if you are looking to release 3 games in approximately 3 years? Well, this all relates to a decision made almost 4 years ago to split the development between myself and campaign designers such as Bill Runacre and David Stoeckl which has them work on a design for almost a year before I join in to implement all the coding changes necessary and to work on the AI scripts as needed and so on. What this has done is to shorten a 3 year development cycle to 2 years and allow us to release multiple games (in 1 year periods) by taking advantage of multiple development teams. Just comparing this to how long it took me to develop SC1 and SC2 completely on my own which was 2 years respectively, minus of course beta feedback, should also paint a picture of just how much more goes into these games than any of the previous releases. There is so much expectation, i.e. the bar raises after each release, that the amount of research and detail that goes into the SC games today would have put me out of business a long time ago if I were still completely a one man show. Factor this in with trying to come up with a new engine each time we make a game and I think you get a better idea that this would only add to the development cycle even more. In the end, do we wish we made a lot more money on these games so that we could give every player what they wanted, absolutely so tell your friends about our games as that will help us achieve that goal , but until then we will just continue to do our best with what we have and beyond that hope that the end result continues to be a success Hubert

Amadeus, To clarify, the losses charts reflect MPP losses based on the purchase costs and not the reinforcement costs. So for example, if a unit costs 100 MPP and loses 1 strength point then it has lost 10 MPP and so on. For the 'Raiders' screen, this shows your losses on the convoy lanes, i.e. it gives you an idea of how much it has cost you to essentially 'raid' your opponent's convoy routes. Hope this helps, Hubert

Just for clarification this was not done to penalize the US for no particular reason, rather the implementation is simply due to limitations of the game engine. That being said I think if we were to make another Global game down the road we would probably do some things a bit differently like implementing a continuous scroll etc., which would ideally eliminate situations such as these.

That's a good idea SeaMonkey and I'll have to think about this one for the future.

Glad you are enjoying the game and to answer your questions there is unfortunately not summary list of all scripts. Best bet is to review them in the Editor, not ideal, but it can give you a better idea on top of playing through the campaigns themselves.

Hi Yolo, sorry to hear about the trouble but if you post a support ticket at http://www.battlefront.com/helpdesk they should be able to help you sort it all out.

Great to hear about the tournament and if you can hold off from starting it right away the new patch should be out this week if all goes well on our end. Hubert

First you have to open a campaign that you wish to import from and then go to File->Export and tick off the 'Weather Zone' option. Then in the Global Editor go to File->Import and navigate to the file you exported and tick off the same 'Weather Zone' option and it should import the weather zone data. Hope this helps, Hubert

I think the problem is that most computers today connect to the internet via a router so your IP as shown by the game is the IP address of your router and not the actual one that would identify your computer on the Internet. There is more info on this in the following link specifically under the Tips section: http://www.furysoftware.com/documents/TCPIP_Quick_How_To.txt Alternatively I've heard of some success using programs like Hamachi to create a virtual private network but I'll admit I've never used it myself. Either way it might be worth looking into: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamachi_(software)

Sorry to hear about the trouble CSS but if post a support ticket at http://www.battlefront.com/helpdesk they should be able to help you sort it out.

Hi Catacol, Can you send me a saved turn so I could take a look and see what might be happening? Thanks, Hubert

Hmmm... that's not a bad idea at all there SeaMonkey. I'll have to think about it some more but I like where you are going with this one