6 players TCP/IP & real life compatible game?

[Codename Condor]

Well, first of all, congrats for it looks like its gonna be a great game!!. I like the features added so far:
- Weather
- Very good editor
- Paratroopers & engineers
- Events
- Big map
- Up to 6 players
- HQs for minors
- New US industrial capacity, lend&lease, …
- And fancy graphics! And other surprises...

My concern goes for the other problems in SC: Sub warfare and Strategic bomber warfare and game balance.

How has been tackled the sub warfare? With the hunt/silent mode we will be seeing subs sinkin’ carriers? Or only convoy ships? U have to manually move the convoy ships or are there any auto convoy lines?

Too many things added, HQ manual selection of units?, manual convoys?, fortifications,…and so on, we’ve been playing some marathon SC TCP/IP games, with these new things and up to 6 players!! can we expect to finish a game in a reasonable time?

In other words, are we going to have a real life when this game gets released? :confused: :eek:

[zappsweden]

I think they should use a timing system like in Chess see http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=34;t=000033 I rather play a game in 10 hours than 40 hours.

[Some_God]

Originally posted by Codename Condor:
In other words, are we going to have a real life when this game gets released? :confused: :eek: I never had a life in the first place... tongue.gif :rolleyes:

[KDG]

HQ manual selection of units?

This is up to the player. It can automatically select, or you can select.

Fortifications?

You don't have to play with an engineering unit. I would imagine there would be a 1-2 max anyways on this unit.

I'd rather have lots of options, and be allowed to toggle it off if you want, and that looks like what we are going to get.

[Codename Condor]

KDG, just the fact that manual selection of units by HQs is feasible could make the game much longer, most of the people would use it and its time consuming, so Zapp proposal about time limit is the way to go in my opinion (u can waste a lot time to rearrenge units but then less time to move em), it would be good to had a clock implemented as an option. This way if u playing tcp/ip with 6players/30 minutes time limit u can go for a walk for 2 1/2 hours. Well, we will have to wait and see what time will it take, the beta testers surely got some kind of estimation, i would like to know it. I guess it would be high and if it gets too high people will prefer PBEM.

[KDG]

6 players...what nations.

England, France, USA, Russia

vs

Italy, Germany


I'd hate to be France, maybe they could be set to computer, or have another player control them.

By the way, what do the U.S. and Russia do for the first 2 years of play?

Oh, a timer would be a nice feature. Maybe with a 1 minute warning.

[Wehrmacht]

By the way, what do the U.S. and Russia do for the first 2 years of play?

Well, they would do... nothing.

Think how fun it is if axis wins by sealion in 6 player tcp/ip game...

But anyway, I think it's great to have 6 player tcp/ip

[Sombra]

Well imagine the US and russian Player sitting and watching the game unfold, yelling all the time at the french player. Don´t loose France in March stupid!! England don´t exhaust youself :))


I hope it is implemented well. Though that you can give over the control of sides to other players or AI if players drop out. Safeguards if one player disconnects though not the whole game crashes. etc. A clock would be fine and something to do while the other players are moving would be fine .

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by Sombra:
Well imagine the US and russian Player sitting and watching the game unfold, yelling all the time at the french player. Don´t loose France in March stupid!! England don´t exhaust youself :))
LOL :D

[Dragonheart]

Zapp imagine....6 players....rambo germany....you gbp moving poland....me france....and some other players waiting for action...

Turn 1 no polish breakthrough.....for rambo....his comments.....bull****...****ing rolls.....i surrender :D ....all others oh nooooooooo

ok another attempt..
Dragon this time germany, Rambo GBP, Zapp France and some other players.... after loosing his 3rd AF in france dragon kicks his keyboard and surrenders ....the spectator masses.....man!!!!!!!! :D

After several attempts all spectaors leave the scene and only two players are left.....Zapp and Dragon start a game of the good old SC1. ;)

[zappsweden]

A good scheme to use would be

2 vs 2:
Player 1: Germany
Player 2: Italy+minors+Japan?
Player 3: UK+Poland+USA
Player 4: France+Russia

[Bill101]

I understand why people want a time limit in TCP/IP, but what would happen if you're about to do your move, the phone/doorbell goes, and by the time you've dealt with the caller your turn is over.

Something like that could ruin the game at a crucial moment, causing a lot of frustration.

Maybe the answer is just for slow players to stick to PBEM?

Or a pause button could possibly be added for TCP/IP, with the proviso that it cannot be turned on and off at will (i.e. used for thinking time).

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by Bill101:
I understand why people want a time limit in TCP/IP, but what would happen if you're about to do your move, the phone/doorbell goes, and by the time you've dealt with the caller your turn is over.

Something like that could ruin the game at a crucial moment, causing a lot of frustration.

Maybe the answer is just for slow players to stick to PBEM?

Or a pause button could possibly be added for TCP/IP, with the proviso that it cannot be turned on and off at will (i.e. used for thinking time). Yes, a pause where at leist one player from each side must confirm it.

Anyway, do not pick up the phone :D

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Bill101:
I understand why people want a time limit in TCP/IP, but what would happen if you're about to do your move, the phone/doorbell goes, and by the time you've dealt with the caller your turn is over.

Something like that could ruin the game at a crucial moment, causing a lot of frustration.
Do what I do and play in the nights.

[Dragonheart]

@Zapp pahhhh you and not picking the phone....i cant believe!!!!!! LOL

@Kuni no comment you can imagine what i wanna say now ......LOL

[Sombra]

@simply save the game and resume afterwards

[jon_j_rambo]

Hey Kuni, you can be my partner for a "mixed doubles" tournament. Don't get all bent out of shape, overact & get banned because of this comment smile.gif

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:
Hey Kuni, you can be my partner for a "mixed doubles" tournament. Don't get all bent out of shape, overact & get banned because of this comment smile.gif What sort of mix was it you meant Rambo?
Americans and People? :D

[Dragonheart]

So we will need not only a single ladder but also one for "mixed partners".. lol

[jon_j_rambo]

I'm using "mixed doubles" as a tennis term. I'm the Jimmy Conners, Andre Agassi (Image is Everything), John McEnroe, Pete Sampras, Andy Roddick of SC.....so when a "mixed doubles" tournament comes up, I'll need a female partner, thus Banniworth.

[Dragonheart]

when you speak from a mixed i rather believe its a Jimmy Conners/Martina Navratilova "mixed double"....LOL so who is playing the female part in your game..? you or Kuni? :D

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:
Hey Kuni, you can be my partner for a "mixed doubles" tournament. Don't get all bent out of shape, overact & get banned because of this comment smile.gif Oh my God, Rambo wants to play with me instead of himself. Oh the pride we feel over at camp Kuni.

But seriously sure. Some heavyweight games between 2 vs 2 or 1(axis) vs 2(allies and USSR) would be neath.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Dragonheart:
@Kuni no comment you can imagine what i wanna say now ......LOL He he it's ok lad, speak your mind. I'm back now so I can defend myself :D

[Dragonheart]

Nah i say nothing dont wanna loose a possible mixed partner LOL