Working on other project?

[Kuniworth]

Ok guys just post now to make my point.

Nice to see that the sc series can find new wars to explore. The sc2 game engine is definately capable of depicting ww1 and it will be a great game I'm sure.

However I can't help to feel a bit disappointed. Maybe that is because I've been around here since 2002 and many new guys have not seen all the earlier versions. Or perhaps is it because everyone here is fine with how it works right now.

What I see from looking at the pictures is basically the same game as sc2 and the following expansions. Most of the stuff looks the same just with updated units. Even the city-images are reused from the sc2-series.

I'm sorry but where is the groundbreaking ideas that made the original sc1 and sc2? I see no signs that this version will include retreat rules, hexes or other stuffg we have been talking about.

I mean is this it or do you keep working on a future project?

[Snowstorm]

I couldn't agree with you more, Kuni, on all counts.

I'm curious as well as to whether SC takes a different altogether new approach besides the same ole game, different war.

Maybe if Hubert can drop just the tiniest hint...

[SeaMonkey]

Not to be negative, but I did say that anything after GC was getting a bit long in the tooth. Why do you think I was trying to inspire a discussion with the SC3 threads?

Seems to me I was the one with most of the ideas when I was looking for some veteran input to help develop some innovation for the next edition. Now to be truthful there was some feedback, but I had to really go reaching for some things and that is not my forte', I like the ideas to flow, come naturally.

All this leads me to some conclusions, the primary one being that we've exhausted the slate on ideas for the strategic scale that are consistent with simple gameplay, not to mention the competecy level of the AI when moving forward with additional complications.

So now you've got to ask yourself, are we really going to see anything as innovative as we did with the first two releases, SC1 & 2, without deviating from the friendly interface we all have grown to expect?

[Rocko1]

circa cold war 1980's is what we need, a little modern warfare fresh blood and to be honest not very many games out there for this!

[jon_j_rambo]

WW-1 doesn't have Air Power, so it's not that interesting to me on a grand scale.

[Arinvald]

WW-1 doesn't have Air Power, so it's not that interesting to me on a grand scale.

Certainly not anything approaching that of WWII but Air Power did play an important role on WWI. Even strategic bombing got a bit of a workout.

[PowerGmbH]

Kuniworth: i would see this from an other optics: which game designer in the whoole world, working almost alone, feeds a community of strategy fans with a so constant advances in ever new games and scenarios like does Hubert Carter?

If you turn to Million budget Games, nobody there takes into account design ideas, or suggestions, just write a mail to EA or so and see...

What fascinates me since SC1, is the constancy of nice games to play with allways sth new and allways advancing. I'm confident that this will continue constantly so, in an ever better getting game; until then in 2025 we may get the perfect SC-7.0 where you just connect a cable in your brain and can play:D

[Kuniworth]

Kuniworth: i would see this from an other optics: which game designer in the whoole world, working almost alone, feeds a community of strategy fans with a so constant advances in ever new games and scenarios like does Hubert Carter?

If you turn to Million budget Games, nobody there takes into account design ideas, or suggestions, just write a mail to EA or so and see...

What fascinates me since SC1, is the constancy of nice games to play with allways sth new and allways advancing. I'm confident that this will continue constantly so, in an ever better getting game; until then in 2025 we may get the perfect SC-7.0 where you just connect a cable in your brain and can play:D

PowerGmbH:

Thing is this. I expect much more after sc1 and sc2. This is basically the same game as the last 6 years with some upgrades for each versions. For me this was the final nail in the coffin. It's quite obvious by now that Hubert either not posses the ability to create a new game-engine or else he don't give a damn.

I don't know, I think it's 5 years now I've been asking Fury software for sc3. Me and Jersey and lots of folks asked at least for an improved sc 1 and Hubert hinted that he might surprise us with it down the road.

Well apperently that is not the case and that surprises me. The way Bill Macon and Blashy a while back started to encourage claims to get hexes made me think that behind the curtain something was going on. But I was probably wrong. That was 2 years ago and with no signs of sc3 by now there is probably not much going on after all. And the reports that this version got game engine improvemen ts is a bad sign as it tells us what Hubert spent his time on instead of making sc3.

Honestly I want a better game. Playing sc2 in different versions for 6 years would be ok if I believed in the original game mechanics. But the lack of hexes and retreat rules is killing the ww2 experience. Even if sc1 had tons of flaws the addiction of it kept it alive.

I'm disappointed at the lack of initiative displayed. Instead of sc3 we get sc2 version 5(w&a, pde, pacific, world, ww1)

I will nt buy this game. I have already made mods that take me to the civil war, waterloo, stalingrad etc with the current engine. I want greatness, I want my sc3

[jon_j_rambo]

Question should be: Why would I (Camp Rambo) play World War One, when I've got SC-Global, that is the question. Just the thought of WW-1 bores me. Who is the market for WW-1 games? Certainly doesn't interest me. Yet on the flip, I'll actually have to learn some new stuff. Is it a rehash of SC engine or going to have a new tactical feel to it?

I want Victory Games U.S. Civil War made into a classic.

[xwormwood]

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!

[Stalins Organ]

Rambo's disdain for WW1 is a common attitude among gamers bought up on fast tank and airpower tactics.

However I find a game without gamey (sic) airpower and armour to be a joy - so far the best game of any kind that I have played is an oldie called Guns of August and it is a WW1 game.

It limits you to historical possibilities by the simple process of not letting you do anything else!

Airpower is vitally important...but dosen't actually attack anything (except other a/c)! Seapower ditto (except othe ships! - no overpowerful land bombardment here!), shipping is the lifeline of the TE - they starve if hte U-boats get too strong! Trenches, artillery, tanks, gas, Stosstruppen, open spaces for manouvre in the east, muddy debacles in the west, morale, resources, food, technology, submarines, Gallipolli is you want to risk it, go France first or Russia 1st with the CP - try to capture the Ukrainian wheat fields, etc.

If SCWW1 gets half of that it will be a good game - potentially moreso since AoG has some rough edges that need working out but the developer has moved on

If it gets all of it then it will be brilliant.

As for why WW1? Because WW1 set up the whole of the 20th century - from it we got the 2 great ideaologies that drove the whole century - fascism and communism.

WW1 is where the 21st century comes from!

[Brian the Dane]

I'm buying this game the day it comes out! Maybe the day before it comes out! I have no complaints on the game engine. I don't mind squares. The games are nail biting. I don't think Hubert would be going to WW1, if he didn't know what he was doing.

[Hubert Cater]

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

[Syagrius]

I support WW 1 all the way; at the moment there is no friendly user and playable WW1 game out there. I know Slitherine are making one also that looks good. I own both SC Global and CEAW since they are my kind of game with good interface and gameplay. So I say more WW 1 games because it has been overlooked for long enough.

[Hubert Cater]

Not to be negative, but I did say that anything after GC was getting a bit long in the tooth. Why do you think I was trying to inspire a discussion with the SC3 threads?

Seems to me I was the one with most of the ideas when I was looking for some veteran input to help develop some innovation for the next edition. Now to be truthful there was some feedback, but I had to really go reaching for some things and that is not my forte', I like the ideas to flow, come naturally.

All this leads me to some conclusions, the primary one being that we've exhausted the slate on ideas for the strategic scale that are consistent with simple gameplay, not to mention the competecy level of the AI when moving forward with additional complications.

So now you've got to ask yourself, are we really going to see anything as innovative as we did with the first two releases, SC1 & 2, without deviating from the friendly interface we all have grown to expect?

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

[Arinvald]

Personally I am one of those that prefer WWI over WWII. I mean really, WWII has had about the last ounce of juice sqeezed out of it as far as I'm concerned and WWI has only been given a gentle squeeze. WWI truely changed the world and was the end of an era and led directly to WWII. Much too important and epic for such slight treatment.

I have played all of the WWI games that have been released over the last few years but they have all been lacking imo. France '14 is excellent but only plays at an operational level and I really crave strategic level gaming for WWI. Others have been close but suffered from lack of support or attempted too much and fell under their own weight. This game looks and sounds like it might just reach the sweet spot so I am anxiously looking forward to it.

[Stalins Organ]

Arinvald did you play Guns of August?

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks Arnivald and I strongly suspect you will enjoy this release

[xwormwood]

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.

[xwormwood]

Arinvald did you play Guns of August?

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:

[SeaMonkey]

For a longtime now, I believe you(Hubert) and I have been on the same wavelength for SC development and again your post seems to reflect just that premise. I remain supportive of your gaming endeavors and I still believe there is some mail in the envelope that hasn't been read yet, ie SC can get better, whether it's SC3 or further expansions of SC2.

Our fellow SC brethren will have to reckon with the fact that the large leaps in innovative mechanics will perhaps come up a little short of the past expectations, as I stated. None the less I still believe the true SC enthusiasts will continue to support you, Hubert, with their patronage and ideas but with some increase in grumbling, it's just human nature.:cool:

One thing I wish you to recollect, remember SC1 didn't start out with such an extensive editor and I see no reason, although it would be nice, that SC3 should include anything more than a rudimentary editor as the new mechanics are hashed out. Obviously, being a master game programmer, we can depend on you to write with the flexibility that culminates with a similar editor the now famous SC series possesses.

That's good enough for me, and I suspect good enough for the other SCers also, so don't let that(editor) stand in the way of progress on the SC3 front. The "deja vu" I want attached to the progress of SC3 is the same as the original, why mess with success!

[Arinvald]

Arinvald did you play Guns of August?

Yeah I pre-paid for the game back in 2003.:eek: It really came close but the interface was a bit of a chore and I felt like the game was a little thin as far as worldwide events and economics were concerned. I had that game in mind when I mentioned lack of support. It seems like the game could do with a couple more patches and apparently it will get no more love from Frank. The final straw was when I couldn't get an email game going with my opponent overseas. I agree though that the AI was very solid. I wanted so much to love GOA but I simply put it away and eventually let it go as a trade. I occaisionally think of buying it again and giving it another go but it looks like SCWWI may be just what I want.

[Stalins Organ]

You shouldn't have to buy it again - it is still on the other publisher's site as a download & all your info (reg key, etc shoudl be retrievable).

Contact me there of by pm if you want...I'm SMK over there if you are reading the forum:)

Yes it definitely needed another patch to iron out some of the bugs & I'm disappointed that none seem forthgoming....I have suggested to Fank that my 16 yr old nerd son might do some "contract coding", but that didn't spark any interest :/

I don't see world-wide events as being particualrly important & love the production/economics system - IMO it is simple and yet also deep and subtle.

I'm surprised you couldn't get a game going! I have 4 atm, having lsot a couple of others recently....

But this is getting a bit too OT, so if you'd like to revive your inetrest before SCWW1 by all means drop me a line

[Arinvald]

Thanks Stalin, I may eventually give it another go at some point.

[Snowstorm]

I think at some point this might become inevitable, but how about something along the lines of galactic war between planets? Sooner or later I think it should head out into space. Granted, I haven't thougth it all the way through, but it seems ultimately an idea the developers ought to seriously think about and see how the current game engine might work with it, while still offering a fresher game of strategy albeit with the same or similar game engine.