Can we have a full status report?

[Janh]

Norb's position is quite understandable, but I think there is also some truth in Odox statement.
I would imagine that a lot of especially the older fans of this series, who likely started out with games like "Sid Meier's GB", "Antietam", the "Civil War General" Series or even SSI's old games, have seen a lot of games going by. While the improvements of TC2M over CWBR might be very obvious to newer fans, a lot of the older gamers might find the series quite similar to Sid Meier's GB. What older gamer probably hope for are some really new, substantial features (AI, buildable entrenchments, more scripting commands, etc) -- at least this is the feeling I get when talking to my old friends, who went through a lot of civil war games with me. You become more patient when you've already seen a lot, I guess, and can wait one or two generations in a game series before the next title appears with enough substantial progress to be worth buying.

I for my part hope that enough substantial features will make it into the new game on release so that it is definitely more than just a new map and some AI bugfixing as compared to TC2M. So far I have high expectations in Norb and his team, and his last game was so impressive that I am confident the new game will be another milestone...

I wonder how many people will wait with buying the game until it gets patched if many features won't make it in the initial release. Would it be interesting to start a poll on that and see how the majority of people make their decisions?

[Little Powell]

Amish John wrote:

After playing TC2M, if GB is in anyway improved over and above that game (and I think we all know it will be), I doubt anyone will be disappointed with the initial release. Knowing there will be added features at intervals after initial purchase just entices me more. Norb and team demonstrated with TC2M they will only release a quality product. Also, I thought their post-release forum support was great.

"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week."
-George S. Patton

Well said AJ. Any patch or upgrade will be a good thing. By far, not a result of an unfinished/compromised product.

[norb]

We usually try to focus on a couple of major features, game changes, for a release. For this release it was maps, multiplayer, and AI. These three areas are the ones that we wanted to make sure that we advanced beyond where the TC series went. I believe that we are there, though there is an MP bug right now.

Everyone has a huge list of features they want. I have my own list. It's impossible to get all of the features into the game. But we listen to the community and we write down the features on our lists. We try to get as many in as possible. But there comes a time when you just have to say that's it.

I don't think that it's a bad thing to say that we listen and we got in a ton of requested features, but we can't get them all in right now. We can't get in everything we want, but we got in a ton. We worked on the base. The modding system is much better. The AI is much less likely to walk over each other. MP is going to be awesome. I'm working on getting us into a game lobby. We're also trying to make sure the game is easy to get.

So people have the right to focus on the feature they want and whether it got into this release or not, but I'd rather focus on what we did get done and how well it is all coming together.

[Joshua l.Chamberlain]

I thought I saw in a earlier post that you aren't going to use sprites on this game but instead you were going to go 3d?

[norb]

When Wrangler and I started, we planned on going 3D with a different graphics API. But when it became clear that the graphics API that we were using was not going to work for other reasons, we went back to 2D. One of our steps will be 3D units very soon. Sprites will always be in the game in some format, even the top games of today use sprites for foliage. We will slowly move all of our unit sprites to 3D models.

[norb]

It's funny the way these threads go. If we hadn't done MP, we would be talking about that. But since that's in, we are just discussing everything we don't have. I understand that's the way these things go, but it's just very predictable. I do it myself and I see it in the Strat game fans. Grass is always greener.

[Joshua l.Chamberlain]

All I want is new 2d units. And can we please have multiple commanders like Hancock (especially Hnacock), Renolds, Meade, Vincent, Hill, Longstreet, and so on. And maybe most of the different zouave uniforms.

[O. O. Howard]

norb wrote:

It's funny the way these threads go. If we hadn't done MP, we would be talking about that. But since that's in, we are just discussing everything we don't have. I understand that's the way these things go, but it's just very predictable. I do it myself and I see it in the Strat game fans. Grass is always greener.

Do mind all that. Release what you can and then fix or improve what you can improve later. TC2M is great and has given years of playability. Add multiplaying and whatever else you can add or improve upon and let's get playing!

[norb]

Joshua l.Chamberlain wrote:

All I want is new 2d units. And can we please have multiple commanders like Hancock (especially Hnacock), Renolds, Meade, Vincent, Hill, Longstreet, and so on. And maybe most of the different zouave uniforms.

That is the main reason to move to 3D Models, for the Generals at least. If we did, we could do every single commander!! There would be no limits. We will have some, but not all as sprites. The cost of adding one sprite commander is huge on memory.

[Hancock the Superb]

Can someone please spell my name right for once!
:laugh: