xwormwood

Don't worry, gentlemen, this game will rock. Be it in the Balkans, the Ottoman Empire, Lybia, Morrocco, Russia, France, Italy, in the Naval war - it's already (even though still in the beta phase) a hell of a game. And it is a unique WW1 game too, and not a WW2 game disguised as WW1 game.

Nice links, thank you!

I could live with a solution like in the multiplayer game, where i get asked if i want to see what happened in my opponents turn. Suggestion: play a song from the HD while the AI makes its hidden turn. WHile the music plays, i know i don't have to watch the screen. When its my turn again, give me the option to watch a review of the last AI turn. If the music player would use music which i have stored in a folder on my hard disk, than i could even hear authentic music or whatever music i like to listen to.

Wouldn't it be fair to wait for the first demo or the release before you start to complain about an abscence of a more realistic combat?

rocko, you're probably right.

WW3? A russian attack, Nato retreat, Nato Tac Nukes, Warsaw Pact Tac Nukes, End of Conflict or even more a-, b- and c- weapon attacks. Let it spell me out for you: B-O-R-I-N-G. If at all such a game would need a massive upgrade on the decision events and the political influence system, and it would have to be world wide, very much like the board game "Twilight Struggle" http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/12333/twilight-struggle

I bought the game several month ago, and i tried to play it, but the game interface scared me away. I don't know what those guys wanted to achieve with this uncomfortable thing called game, but as much as i love WW1, and even though i payed much money for it, it sleeps probably for ever on my hard drive. Some developers have obviously problems to create user friendly and easy to learn game interfaces. And since those days when Gary Grigsbys Steel Panthers General Edition got released, they obviously all sign on at Matrix Games. At least that is the way i feel, having at least 5 titles from this company i never really played as i didn't survived the drought of the learning phase. SC i can play without even reading or thinking about the manual. I played Panzer General and some other, even older game, which had a better user interface than most of the Matrix titles. Those guy were able to make the successor of the MIGHTY complicated Pacific Theater (againg Gary Grigsby) even MORE complicated. I had to take three attempts to learn SSIs Pacific Theater (it took me years) before i was able to play the game, and this with much fun. Matrix offered a sequel that was even more hard to understand and to play. Amazing! :eek:

Hubert, if my personal opinion is of any use: Bring the WW1 game out in its full and best possible glory, consider a modern war (1945 - 1990 powerstruggle type of game, with dozen and dozens of political decissions AND the option to tight low level wars or full out war) and build maybe even a fantasy game before you move on. Your actual game engine works, it works very well, and it gets better and better with any new release. As much as i would love to see hexes again and retreating units (as a combat result), as much i would always prefer a great game which actualy gets released, works without bugs, offers fun to play instead of a misty game that might not work as well or that might "die" on the way of development because the money ran out, the developer moved on to more lucrative jobs or because of unforseable problems with the new game engine. With the current engine you have proven often and often enough that you were able to listen to your customers, you were able to introduce many new and good things. Thats a good thing, for sure. Personaly, "i" have "lost" way too many good game developers over the years, like those brave guys who did some of the best games ever at SSI, FTL or Interplay. Gone with the wind. Only their legacy remains. I don't want to loose you as well. Not until some more good games just like SC Global Conquest, Patton drives east, Pacific Theater or the upcoming WW1 game get released. I even would take a Civil war game.

Sorry for butting in: you want a WW1 game because of things like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHEck4GxHdI&feature=watch_response_rev "me and the Kaiser didn't wanted this war." But while its on, we will do our duty. God with us. You lead, we follow. To arms, for King, Kaiser, Tsar and fatherland!

Maybe its comforting you that the axis can't cross from one side of the USA to the other at all. At least not if the Axis doesn't hold both arrow points (entry and exit) in west AND east america (doesn't matter if Canada or Mexico has had surrendered. The axis has to go by sea around cape horn or like Cortez through middle or south america... :eek::confused:

Jollyguy, WHEN do the USA ever move land units from west to east or vice versa? Usually you place your new units where you want them to ship. IF someone invades the USA then think about the chaos that would create. I have no problems with a LITTLE delay IF i EVER move land units from one coast to the other one.

Thanks for asking, jjr, but i'm afraid i won't be able to play any new game until the release of patch 1.04

It is a scenarion which is already in the standard game (it isn't a user mod from the repository). But we don't have to use it, the "normal" game would be fine as well. So i will start the "standard" game as axis, you can play the allies again. Unfortunatly i will have to reinstall (don't ask...) the game first, and tired as i am right now i will only able to do it tommorrow. Sorry for that.

Hell, yes, i want a new game. I don't care for sides either. What about the evil alliance scenario (Axis: Russia & Germany, Allies: China, Japan, USA, UK)? Should be a fresh play for both sides.

Capitulation from my side. Playing on with Japan alone is a) no fun and work, real work for the allied side (shifting all the units towards the pacific). That was a good a game, i could learn and try out some more things. Most important: don't invest in diplo, ignore Africa, don't fight in Australia AND India AND China and AFRICA at the same time with your japanese forces, decide on one or two and take a kill before you move on. Free units everywhere for the Allies, so don't invade anything by sea, only take up the land war in the east.

I would like to add that until today SC GC misses some political effects of Japanese victories. I would guess that India would at a certain time start to fight the British as well, simply to regain independence (first from the UK, and than to prevent the Japanese to move into the Indian heartland. And some African or near eastern colonies might dare to kick the UK out as well if the UK would went with everything againt Germany. Would be nice if allied nations (axis or allies) would be able to decide to LEAVE an alliance if opportunity, time and Co. would be right. Think about Egypt. With the Axis staying long enough head to head with the UK in north Africa, local patriots would probably think about something to get rid of the English as well.

Yes, its true. Berlin has fallen into the hand of the Tommies. But Germany still tries to fight on, this time from the "Alpenfestung" (aka alp fortress, or better: Munich). Königsberg is surrounded by russian lvl 4 tanks, so Rundstedt had to retreat to Danmark. Norwegian vounteers try to hold the east prussian capital against the reds. Germany only fights on to enable her japanese Allies the victory in the pacific.

As far as i know Germany was VERY low on ammunition after the poland campaign, low as in "if France attacks now we will be all in serious trouble, my dear friends of beer, sauerkraut and swastikas"

Thats not so far from history at i may sound like.

Nothing new to report. But the USA brought in some more tanks into France. Another suggestion or remark regarding the weather. In SC it is possible to fly though a bad weather zone to attack in a good weather zone. But it is not possible to start a flight in a bad weather zone to attack in a good weather zone. This needs to be fixed. Either allow or deny a flight through bad weather. Simple logic dictates if flying through a bad weather zone is possible, a start in a bad weather zone should be possible as well. It is correct that you can't find your target under the clouds. But you can still take off, even in rain. You may have some difficulties to land your plain in rainy weather, but it is possible. We already have random damages for naval units in bad weather zones. Something like this would work wonderfully for planes as well (land in bad weather and there is a chance that you receive a certain damage).

Well, the stay in new Orleans won't last for long anymore, i guess. Germany still stands, but in the west those german tanks of mine face about 5 strategic bombers, at least 5 - 7 tac airs and several fighters, while the luftwaffe is down to 2 (experienced) fighters in the west. The east front more or less still stands where the russians attacked in 1941 (with Odessa in romanian hands). Japan moves in for the indian kill, while in autralia the allied were able to stop the invasion attempt. In the pacific islands jjr started some minot island hopping.

I presume that Hubert is on thing not: short of suggestions from each and everyone of us. Poor guy. :D:D

Buy Patton drives east, there you can play some pretty interesting WW3 games (1945 - 1955).

Camp xwormwood fans will be pleased to learn about the start of our invasion of the USA, Neu Örlinz and a neighbored oil field happily learn to love Sauerkraut and Bratwurst. But as always: SC grants the ALLIES free scripted units for this axis actions. This is simply not right. If you give away free units because something bad happened to the Allied side, than you have to punish the Allied side with something else as well. So the USA get a Free HQ and and very fast produced tank when the Axis side invades the USA, great, but please take away some money, or give a diplo loss fot the allied side among the neutral countries, give a morale boost for the axis units. Anything. But doing nothing about this can't be correct. Please, stop these one sided bonus actions. I do of course understand that SC is a game for the north american customers, but still. It is not soooo very hard to think some actions and their outcome completly through. Of course the USA would be able to get soon and several units once the USA gets invaded. But at a price, still. And the whole world would notice that the mighty USA wasn't able to defend its own shore lines against some puny little axis invasion. It can't be right to reward a) only the allied side and give rewards for mistakes of the allied side (the mistake would be to allow an invasion, and i have to add that i wouldn't call it a mistake in our AAR game), i write more for all other games, not this specific one). A long story short: As the Allied Player, you don't have to protect the US shores at all, as you already know that nothing better could happen than an invasion of your own country. THAT IS SO WRONG! Having said this, i want to add that in our game it has of course no significant difference if the allies get some MORE free units or not. But it still stinks. Big time.

There is no reason to get unsure about the outcome of this war. We only let them come closer because we can slay them here way faster. Everybody now: stay calm and fight like your fathers did before you. Regard: just like the Führer promised we already took back belgium...