Brit

Funny, I was just working on some of that stuff this week. The maps are measured in pixels, and they range from 800x800 to 3200x3200. Right now, the game recommends a maximum number of players based on map size (e.g. "Recommended Players: 3 or less"). There's really no problem playing a two-player game on the largest map size. Playing a 20 player game on the small map, however, is a problem (mostly due to the fact that the map generator has a hard time packing together that many players on a small map, plus, in terms of gameplay, all players will be almost on top of each-other on the first turn). There is no fixed number of units in the game. However, you do have to pay a maintenance cost for units (food and oil), so the maximum number is actually determined by how many your nation can support. Victory conditions, right now, involve being the only player in the game with any cities. (You don't have to capture all the cities on the map, but you have to capture all the enemy cities. In other words: there are neutral cities in the game, and you don't need to capture them to win.) You're also allowed to form teams with other players. If one team has control of all the owned cities, then the team wins the game. I'm thinking of adding a slightly different victory condition involving the capture of 90% of the owned cities. This is to avoid a particular type of stalemate that can occur in some maps.

Yeah, I know what you mean about the Civ games. I sometimes take a week to finish a game. I'm really aiming for a shorter game than that. I've thought about the PBEM option, and the simultaneous turn resolution would work well with that type of game. Right now, I don't have that type of gameplay setup, but it might not be very difficult to do. If PBEM isn't included at release, I think it's something that should be added in a later version.

By the way, one source of new information is the developer blog. An rss reader (example: my.yahoo.com, www.google.com/reader) can keep you informed of new updates there. Link to the blog: http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&blogger=Brit&Itemid=213 RSS feed: http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&blogger=Brit&Itemid=213&task=rss

Sorry, nothing new to report right now.

Huh. I've never actually played Command HQ, and didn't know it used a wego system. EOS does have quite a bit of Empire influence, but also influences from Civilization (technology, city improvements), some RTS influence (there are no "grids" on the map, orders are given rather than direct/constant control), and a bunch of extras (like voicechat, ability to share maps with allies, ability to land aircraft in allies' airbases, etc). Despite the RTS influence, it is a turn-based game, and I very much wanted to avoid the frantic pace of RTS games.

The basic game rules don't have different bonuses or advantages for certain players. Empires of Steel does allow for user-designed rules, however, and the engine allows for customized nations. Theoretically, users could create entirely distinct technology trees and units for each player. For example, a user could create a WW2 ruleset that has tanks, ships, aircraft, etc for each of the major nations. (Even a kamikazi unit for the Japanese that self-destructs on attack.) However, with the official rules, there are no nation-specific units or technologies pre-bundled with the game.

I think you're thinking of Command HQ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_HQ

Combat doesn't occur instantly, like it does in the Empire or Civ games. Instead, units trade blows over a period of time - sometimes the combat is resolved quickly, sometimes it can take a couple turns - depending on the combat results. And, if you have a small number of units defending a city against a larger number of attackers, you hope that combat doesn't get completed quickly - so that your reinforcements can arrive before combat is completed. Groups of units can fight against each other. In fact, I tried to make it as easy as possible to group units together and treat them as if they were one large unit. When groups of units fight, they don't send one unit at a time into combat. (I found the Civilization one-unit-at-a-time combat system to be slow and annoying when large numbers of units were in combat.) Instead, all units fight simultaneously. For example, if you have a few units defending a city, and your enemy attacks with a few units, you'll trade blows back and forth - both sides taking damage and both sides losing units over a period of time. During each player's turn, they can order their remaining units to retreat from combat.

Thanks. I'm the developer, and that's a pretty good description of the game. While playing Civ 3, I felt it could've been better with more war strategy - particularly in the 20th century. And, I was a long-time fan of the Empire game.