Thanks Chris - I will do that.

To MJR, contact me at nws-online@nws-online.net

Thanks.

Originally Posted By JudgeDredd (15 FEB 2012 10:48am)

I'm not a big navy nut anyway but one thing that immediately put me off was the mention in the AAR of knowing where the enemy was. That kills a scenario.

 

So - a couple of questions that may change my mind...

1. Are the scenarios fixed? I'm all for historical accuracy but prefer gameplay over it

2. If they are not fixed what variables are in there? OOB? Position? AI aggression or the like?

 

I just don't want to play out a historical lesson. I'm quite happy with variables which give a scenario variations...keep it interesting.

You can vary the starting position, waypoint positions, and OOBs.  It is  all dependent on the scenario designer putting in the right percentages and doing the work of bascially creating alternate plans within the scenario design process.

Originally Posted By DCosta (15 FEB 2012 5:23am)

I was browsing the Matrix forum, not something I do that often to be honest, and found it sad to see this game come in for some harsh comments. A forum supposedly full of wargamers. I'd hate to make games for our community to be honest. Mainly to do with the graphics and UI (yet those moaning at th UI haven't even played it just watched Hermanns AAR).

 

Rather sad. 

Actually the only one who bothered to actually watch the AARs (Missouri_Rebel) came out quite impressed by the game. This speaks volumes about some of the others :|

I usually don't go around to "evangelize", but judging and poh-pohing a game by reading tea leaves is a childish attitude - exp. if it stinks of "not made here, so -----> bad".

Originally Posted By DCosta (15 FEB 2012 5:23am)

I was browsing the Matrix forum, not something I do that often to be honest, and found it sad to see this game come in for some harsh comments. A forum supposedly full of wargamers. I'd hate to make games for our community to be honest. Mainly to do with the graphics and UI (yet those moaning at th UI haven't even played it just watched Hermanns AAR).

I think the AARs performed their role admirably.  A potentially interested customer got to see the game in action.  The folks who didn't like the UI saw that, too.  I think that it is far better than for them to purchase the game, dislike it, and then badmouth both the game and the developer.  Clarity and openness were primary reasons why the AARs were made.  Everyone should know exactly what they are getting into so that there are no surprises.

After recording the first 80 min AAR, we thought long and hard about the length and whether or not to remove the slower parts.  After careful consideration, we decided to leave them in because they showed how the game actually worked. If it was clumsy or awkward and required multiple clicks, then the user should see this for himself.  We also showed bug reports in subsequent AARs [57:02] for the same reason.

Publishers and developers who try to hide their problems end up with customers who express their disdain publicly.  This discontent was virtually unheard of before they tried to suppress bug discussion.

Originally Posted By Herman Hum (15 FEB 2012 1:26pm)

I think that it is far better than for them to purchase the game, dislike it, and then badmouth both the game and the developer.  

Beside, it gives to potential costumers the opportunity to at least see the game instead of not have a single clue about it, dislike it, and then batmouth both the game and the developer - like was happening on Matrix forum.

Originally Posted By JudgeDredd (15 FEB 2012 10:48am)

I'm not a big navy nut anyway but one thing that immediately put me off was the mention in the AAR of knowing where the enemy was. That kills a scenario.

 

So - a couple of questions that may change my mind...

1. Are the scenarios fixed? I'm all for historical accuracy but prefer gameplay over it

2. If they are not fixed what variables are in there? OOB? Position? AI aggression or the like?

 

I just don't want to play out a historical lesson. I'm quite happy with variables which give a scenario variations...keep it interesting.

Variability of the OoB and starting position are possible.  However, I don't think there is any control over the aggressiveness of the AI.  I think it would be neat to have some ability to influence it, though.  Maybe a Timid, Normal, Aggressive, and Insane level of Aggression.  Heck, I'd like to see different levels even if they are only randomly chosen. 

I don't have the manual handy at work, but I do believe you can (in the scenario editor) set AI to "normal," " cautious" and, I think, one other setting.

Very true.  From the Scenario Editor Manual:

Mission: This determines the aggressiveness
of the force.

Withdraw: The force will be
extremely prone to disengaging.

Cautious: The force will fight,
but be prone to withdraw when they are
facing a superior force or take losses. Typical
behaviour of the German Imperial Navy.

Normal: The force will have
average aggressiveness.

Attack: The force will be more
aggressive and keep on fighting for longer
than an average force and against heavier
odds.

But there seems no way to select this in the game while choosing a scenario.  Shouldn't be a big problem to modify a scen and just re-save it prior to play.

Hermann, it's not about your AAR to be honest. Your AAR was very good indeed. It's what they took out of it and it was obvious they hardly watched it.

Whats happening over there is their badmouthing the game and developer after scanning an AAR without actually checking up on the game and how well it's been received. 

They watched the first couple of mins, heard one comment about the UI (which has now been fixed in a  patch I believe) scanned the graphics and decided the whole game was rubbish had a terrible UI and looked terrible.

The opinions where just plain wrong and coming from wargamers about a game thats being well received by those who have bought it got to me alittle bit. NWS is on of the few developers making this sort of game and have done it byb alla ccounts successfully yet a group of wargamers decide to rip it to bits.

Again, really has nothing todo with the AAR as I expect they hardly watched it. 

Funny enough I expect if they had bought it they'd love it, they'd just made assumptions after probably watching two or three mins of the AAR.

I wonder if Matrix had published it it would be raved about over there. 

DCosta - could you post a link to the thread please - because I can only see one and in that there are two people who "speak badly" of the game (and I'm putting that more strongly than I actually think of the posts!).

One of them (Mo Reb) and he mentions he's impressed after seeing the AARs and the other guy is just grumpy all the time (sorry Termi - but you are).

I'm a big fan of Matrix Games and alot of the members over there 

In the thread I read they are not scathing in the slightest. And tbh the interface does look like it's been dragged out of the early 90's. That actually matters to some people - regardless of what you think of that attitude - it matters to them. I actually thought exactly the same. Then watched an AAR by Herman (very good by the way) and enjoyed what I saw.

And to be fair, you are actually saying they "made assumptions after probably watching two or three minutes of the AAR" and by exactly that statement you made an assumption yourself...so is one persons assumption more valid than anothers?

Regardless - I'm not trying to pick a fight - I just want to know what thread you read - because several of your posts on this thread paint the Matrix lot in a bad light - and I simply do not see it in this thread

Oh - and one last point - they would MOST DEFINITELY be scathing about a game Matrix published. I've seen in many, many times over there since I joined in 2002.

There are only a few harsh comments in that matrix thread and the person making a comment is known to have a loose mouth.  So that thread now has turned generally positive beyond page 1.

I wish the forum software would stop changing a character I type into an emoticon! The sad face emoticon above was actually an open parenthesis!

Yeah - looks like TitanWarrior has took the plunge with Mo Reb keeping an eye on it. I just thought DCosta had seen comments in another thread - because what he's describing above is NOT what I see in the thread I linked to.

I received my serial code this morning at 12:03!   

Does Chris ever sleep?

Honestly I dont know much about the time period.  Does anyone know a good location to buy the "Castles of steel" audiobook?  I didnt see it at Itunes, and Id rather not buy the 25 CD physical version.

You can get it at Barnes and Noble available for download.

Originally Posted By Warship NWS (15 FEB 2012 11:32am)

To MJR, contact me at nws-online@nws-online.net

 

Thanks.

I figured out the download thing.  I have the game and I'm very pleasantly surprised.  The Whole Ottoman

Steam Navy seems to be in the game.

That includes some ships that started out as ironclads in the 1870s, so that seems -- well -- fantastic.

Thank You Sir.

I had to download and install "their media player" but the files themselves are just unencrypted mp3's, so I had no problems pushing them to my droid.  Much easier than converting those mp4's from itunes.

Well I haven't gone back to read it to be honest. All I saw was moans about the UI and the graphics.

Reckall obviously noticed it aswell. As he said the same as me, infact he implied the if it isn't made at matrix thing first. So I presumed he had read more again.

So I apologise. However when the thread started the first few posts I saw weren't very nice. 

Originally Posted By JudgeDredd (16 FEB 2012 1:16am)

 

 

One of them (Mo Reb) and he mentions he's impressed after seeing the AARs and the other guy is just grumpy all the time (sorry Termi - but you are).

 

 

If it was Terminus bad-mouthing the game, then that's nothing new.   You'd be better off ignoring him, as he only hangs around to insult & accost new forum members saying 'hello' and ridicule every game in existence.  So keep in mind the character of said critic, if you lower yourself to actually reading Termite's posts at Matrix, still.

As for wargamers, they always b!tch.  Although many profess to not be bothered by how well the graphics look, they certainly still pass judgement on same, and expect their 2D games to look somewhat pretty and crisp even if they don't say so. 

I enjoy fluff as much as the next person, and I'm still on the fence with this game if only because it reminds me of playing Excel.  Of course - I've not watched the whole AARs yet, nor played it, so I can't definitively badmouth it.  Only express my concerns.  I mean - I already have a turn-based one in WCNAW and a somewhat pretty real-time Jutland for WWI pew pew on the seas.  So I'm wondering why I would want to rush out for this one instead of letting it ripen.

Originally Posted By Nefaro (16 FEB 2012 11:43am)

[and I'm still on the fence with this game if only because it reminds me of playing Excel.  

Sorry, thought you were talking about Tiger Unleashed there for a moment.

Well... one thing I think it has going for it is the ease of accessibility, in real-time.  As the interface in Jutland's 3D can be very annoying, and you can easily miss things (a common problem in 3D wargames). 

Another very big draw is the amount of ships & nations that comes with it.  This thing may have the most variety for the time period, in one package.  And I'm certainly more drawn to the smaller battles, rather than Jutland itself, so this could be what wins me over - if the scenario editor is friendly enough!

Even better is the ship editor.  I can build a new ship in 5 minutes, although getting the reference data can take longer.

Also, it has a very active company supporting it.  I have pretty much given up on SES supporting DG and Jutland anymore.

Originally Posted By DCosta (16 FEB 2012 8:16am)

Well I haven't gone back to read it to be honest. All I saw was moans about the UI and the graphics.

 

Reckall obviously noticed it aswell. As he said the same as me, infact he implied the if it isn't made at matrix thing first. So I presumed he had read more again.

 

So I apologise. However when the thread started the first few posts I saw weren't very nice. 

To supplement the wood's post, another thing about S&I is that you can actually fight large actions.  Aside from all of my problems with SES, the Jutland game itself is not suited, in my opinion, for simulating anything approaching a fleet size action.  With S&I you can observe and fight a fleet as well as a small squadron.

And yes, the only person making derogatory (and unfair) comments over at the Matrix thread was Terminus.

Again sorry. I just saw the start of the thread. I haven't been back since. I thought more had been said going by Rockalls comments.

If I see a thread I don't like comments in I don't go back to read it again.