skirmish battles just end

[Lordholmes2015]

Why???

I still have units left. I still have an officer left. But there's some random as hell time limit? You're giving me 3 Turns to kill every enemy on the map?

[IainMcNeil]

Some people find the limited number of turns frustrating but there needs to be some way to end the game other than total destruction. Would you like the ability to be able to select how long a skirmish lasts? Larger maps have longer time limits.

[IronFist00]

Actually Ian, that's a good idea. Personally I like smaller engagements (doing more with less, maximizing every unit under my command, and having each unit be important appeals to me) and wish they could be longer. Even an option during setup allowing me to set the end game variable to "enemy elimination" would be cool.

As the default keep the current settings. Then add options for variable skirmish length and enemy elimination and you would cover everyone's taste. Although theoretically you can just set the turn limit so high that it is effectively elimination since the game ends when one side has no units left.

[blond_knight_new]

More options is never a bad thing.

[Lordholmes2015]

There needs to be a means for the player to set the length. OR.....set it up so there's diminishing returns based on how long it takes you to win. If I need 6 Turns to win, then my rewards/score are somehow less than if you can blitz through in just a few. Couldn't there be a way to institute something like that? Like, give me as long a I need to win, but tell me I only have N turns to get this secondary objective.

I understand the logic that it shouldn't all depend on body count -- but the reality of this game is you can only activate about half your units each Turn (if that). So if I'm shooting or assaulting with half of my assets each Turn, don't enforce a 3 Turn limit on me where all that fancy tactical deliberation of "which fire team should be activated and in what sequence" gets tossed aside in favor of "run run run there go kill him!" in the hope that I just get the right rolls.

I don't mean to be contentious. I really see a lot here I like. But a lot of my frustration also stems from the fact that I don't see that limit spelled out in the actual game. It just ends.

I like this enough that I've told the wife my big Christmas present can be the core board game and as many expansions as she wants to buy me (she knows she's married to a geek...I balance it out with time in the gym and taking the kids to practices).

I volunteered to test on iPad because my 13 year old is desperate to get into games like this and we could play each other on our mobiles when it's released.

But some parts are just striking me as a bit random.

[IainMcNeil]

The biggest issue is getting the scoring right for these options. We'll have a look and see what we can do!

Thanks for all your feedback.

[Jaedrian]

To be honest, you can just turn off scoring for all I care. I like what you have now in terms of scoring, but what you can do is just simply turn off scoring when folks start using the options. I really would like to see an end to turn limits on skirmish games as well, or at least the option to tweak it. As it stands, the game really is a blitz style game in which you have to just keep pushing forward. Which is fine, but I'm sure some folks, myself included, would like to have a chance to really just sit back and work the tactical side of things. Hard to do with just a handful of turns.

[Uncle_Joe]

While I agree that options are good, you also have to be careful about the validity of data/posts from people who are playing 'outside the norm'.

For example, mortars are somewhat powerful in this game since you can just rain fire down onto anyone anywhere on the board with no restrictions. To do so, you have to make a 'scatter' roll which limits the effectiveness of each shot. With unlimited time, that disadvantage goes away since you can just sit in defensive positions and fire the mortar until the enemy is forced to come to you.

As another example, heavy vehicles are powerful but again there is a limit to the damage that they can do within the set turns provided. But take away (or greatly increase) the limit and all of a sudden heavy vehicles are much more powerful because if you don't have something that can kill it, it will eventually wipe you out.

So the more you allow people to deviate from the design norms (as set in the board game) the more you leave it open for elements of the game system to breakdown. Massive maps, huge unit density, extremely long time limits etc can all distort game balance. The result is that while giving people more options is good, you just have to take their feedback with a grain of salt when playing around at the extremes of the system.

[Jaedrian]

Uncle joe, you make some good points. I think options are just that, options. If you had the option to remove turn limits and that is what two players in a custom game agree too, then that should be their choice. In the board game, it has rules to cover up to 8 turns and the largest battles can take up to 3 hours to complete it says. On the pc however, since so much data is automated, the game plays rather quick, so turns go quickly. By allowing people to tweak the turn limits for custom maps and skirmishes, I don't think you break anything but rather extend out the game as needed for enjoyment. I for one think that letting the player set the turn limits for skirmishes and custom scenarios is a valid option. No need to touch the turn structure on any existing content, just for the player controlled and created content.

[Lordholmes2015]

While I agree that options are good, you also have to be careful about the validity of data/posts from people who are playing 'outside the norm'.

I guess I don't know how good those points were if he's questioning the "validity" of posts offering feedback. In fact, points like that just make me tune some folks out automatically/by default.

And I don't see how I'm playing "outside the norm" if I'm playing within the current constraints of the game. I'm playing "in the norm." I just don't like what I've experienced in Skirmish mode.

I feel the turn limit in Skirmish mode is too harsh and not well defined. There's nothing in skirmish saying "this many turns left." There's nothing that mentions a time limit at all. If campaign scenarios offer a 6 Turn limit, I'm assuming that's because the boardgame version features the same limit....and I could live with that.

But with Skirmish mode, I don't know if the same time limit (4 turns?) is featured in the boardgame for "pickup" battles. Or if this is something the developers have put just in place for the PC version....in which case then this whole "norm" thing goes out the window, anyway.

I'm allowed to offer my opinion as I've paid for the game and I'm playing it.

[IainMcNeil]

I think the issue is more that the game becomes very hard to balance. If you say Mortars are overpowered, and don't mention you are playing with infinite turns then the feedback is skewed, so you need to be very careful what feedback to listen to when you have options. Sometimes people don't even realize what options they're using so it all just gets more complicated.

[Uncle_Joe]

I think the issue is more that the game becomes very hard to balance. If you say Mortars are overpowered, and don't mention you are playing with infinite turns then the feedback is skewed, so you need to be very careful what feedback to listen to when you have options. Sometimes people don't even realize what options they're using so it all just gets more complicated.

This is exactly what I meant. It's not that people who play outside the norm don't have relevant feedback, but it has to be viewed through the prism of the game settings played under. Because as you deviate from the parameters that the game's design was intended (board game is a max of 8 turns except in some monster scenarios) the more game balance can be out of whack (with the examples of the mortars and heavy vehicles among others).

[Igorputski]

Some people find the limited number of turns frustrating but there needs to be some way to end the game other than total destruction. Would you like the ability to be able to select how long a skirmish lasts? Larger maps have longer time limits.

YES!!! Now you're getting the idea. Does every conversion have to be like the board games they convert?

[IronFist00]

If it's not then it annoys those coming from the board game roots, at least most of them. Thi is what happened with the Conflict of Heroes PC game and those changes made were with the input and blessing from the board game designer. It didn't matter. People wanted to play the board game rules and just have the computer handle the tedious stuff and have an AI.

The more you deviate from the board game roots the more you risk splitting the fanbase. This also applies to movies and TV when based on books, comics, or another source material.

[Igorputski]

From past experience the number of players coming from a boardgame conversion are far less than those interested in the new. Other examples would be the Total War series where they got a hell of a lot more players from the RTS genre than they ever had from the veteran strategy genre. You guys are old hats and if they don't cater to the new crowd they won't be around very long. We out number you so best get ready for changes for the in crowd not the old crowd.

[IronFist00]

You make some assumptions in your post. I own the board game but have never played it. I am one of the "new crowd" as you call it considering it was the PC game that brought me here. And in any conversion I tend to prefer it be as close to the source material as possible otherwise why do a conversion? Just do something new and original.

Really you should only be speaking for yourself and not others; "we" should be "I" and since everyone's opinion is valid your case is just as strong. Numbers don't make it stronger.

[IainMcNeil]

In general there is not much point in working with a licensed game/film etc and capturing the essence of that license in your game, otherwise you alienate the core fans and might as well create a new IP. That's said we're doing a lot to help it appeal to new players as well. Igorputski, i think you should take a look at the patch that comes out today and see if you think its any better. We've changed the way dice are rolled to make it much more forgiving and added an iron man mode so people can play with the full real random numbers as they are now.

[IronFist00]

We've changed the way dice are rolled to make it much more forgiving and added an iron man mode so people can play with the full real random numbers as they are now.

I look forward to trying this out. Since I am okay with how things are now, I will probably be sticking with the iron man mode.

[Igorputski]

In general there is not much point in working with a licensed game/film etc and capturing the essence of that license in your game, otherwise you alienate the core fans and might as well create a new IP. That's said we're doing a lot to help it appeal to new players as well. Igorputski, i think you should take a look at the patch that comes out today and see if you think its any better. We've changed the way dice are rolled to make it much more forgiving and added an iron man mode so people can play with the full real random numbers as they are now.

I'm just glad you listened to us and not look the other way. Change is always good and I've never seen a reason any boardgame can't be changed a little bit with "options" as they don't hurt anybody's way of playing and only help those that want to play a little differently and have some fun too. Old grogs will never change their habits it's been proven as you can see from Ironside's post above. He thinks because that's the way he's played it that that's the way it should be. But, as Spock said in one of the Star Trek episodes: The many outweigh the few and thus there should be sacrifices for the many and the few will just have to deal with it.

I know you have the numbers and I don't think you would have made such a decision to change things so quickly had you not seen what many of us already saw. A backlash of complaints and confusion is never good for a new game. Regardless if it's a boardgame conversion or not. It's what people are seeing now not what was before.

[IronFist00]

Igorputski, might want to reread my posts. You got my stance wrong.