Jump to content

RotorHed

Twilight Struggle Backer
  • Content Count

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RotorHed

  • Rank
    Twilight Struggle Backer

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. RotorHed

    Bug with Shuttle Diplomacy

    Well they’ve been working on labyrinth it turns out - maybe TS will get some attention after that is released. I hope they do a decent job with labyrinth - I enjoyed the board game version...
  2. RotorHed

    Did you forget your Kickstarter Backers?

    Wow. Sounds like bad support... The only thing I can suggest is to get in touch with GMT Games. GMT aren't the company developing this but they were involved in the Kickstarter push so they are at least complicit in that part. I hope things work out for you guys - we need all the players we can get!
  3. RotorHed

    Did you forget your Kickstarter Backers?

    I had to send an email to playdek support, telling them whether I wanted an iPad or iPhone version and my kickstarter ID. After I did that I got the code straight away. This procedure was mentioned in a kickstarter email about 2 weeks ago I guess.
  4. RotorHed

    Chantry Games

    Yes the reason Chantry closed was discussed a lot already. I just don't think that will change and I'm not sure it's beneficial to change it. While Chantry may have been a good system (I don't know, I never played it) there aren't enough board gamers to have them split across multiple platforms. Better to have one properly supported official version (at a price that is actually very cheap) than multiple free versions that split the player base. Rather than lament what was lost, perhaps it's better to simply be happy it lasted for the time it did - plenty of other free versions of copy-written material are shut down before they see the light of day and bear much less resemblance to their source material than Chantry games effort. I note that in all this, the developer of the Chantry website has stayed fairly quiet - I don't know the specifics of the agreement but given the lack of resistance I guess they know their position couldn't be defended. Try putting up a Star Wars or Star Trek themed anything these days and the lawyers will be on it as soon as it is live - GMT and PD haven't done anything unusual . This behaviour is normal in the media, gaming and music industries these days. In the great scheme of things, losing Chantry now doesn't seem like an issue worth pursuing when the effort spent getting annoyed could be put into more important things.
  5. RotorHed

    Possibility for new features?

    Excellent stuff. Thanks for the info.
  6. Well we've had a bit of time with the full version now and I'm wondering what things might be added if any to this version of TS? A lot of people have asked for various defcon loss avoidance systems. Personally I don't care about that, but there is a lot of noise on that issue so I wonder if PD plans to implement anything. I also understand hotseat play is coming. Again not something I personally want but I guess that is a selling point for some. Beyond that is there anything else planned? There are a few things I think I would like to see mainly to encourage the multiplayer aspect. 1) It would be nice to have a way to review completed games. The simple way would be to export a text game log, but ideally one would be able to click through a replay and see how the game flowed and see the cards in hand of both players. Would help understanding how a game played out - particularly good for new players I think. Even better if such a feature could be extended to online games so one can see how other people's games played out. 2) For multiplayer, could a system of spectating be added? At it's simplest just let spectators view the board state of ongoing games. At the best, for "live games" a spectator chat or comment system would encourage more community style play. I guess the usual, private, public, friend options would be necessary. Of course cards can't be generally viewable, but a cool feature would be the ability of a player to "tip" their hand to selected spectators. 3) Still being new, TS is just being played ad hoc - but I like the idea of playing a tournament. I guess the simple answer is for the players to set up a separate website, register people schedule games and get results by email. However, if the game provided some kind of hooks to games, players and results that would be good. Presumably the existing back end captures this data somewhere - can an interface be published to allow web based leagues to access play data? Well those are my thoughts. Mainly I'm just curious if there are plans for future development now or if this is "it" for TS. Cheers.
  7. RotorHed

    DefCon 1 warning

    Well I only played the board version before PD's version so I can't say how other electronic implementations work, but on the face of it a dialog every time one selects a card that might lead to defcon loss would be annoying very quickly - I don't think anyone would be happy if such a system were implemented without a way to switch it off. I mean there are a lot of ways a combination of cards can lead defcon loss - but they're perfectly safe to play at other times. A "dumb" dialog every time seems a bit of a weak solution. First AR as USSR I decide to get rid of CIA Created and I have to click another dialog warning me I might lose the game due to defcon? The dialog will just be annoyance for people playing thoughtfully. It's for that reason I think there would have to be some logic implemented and then the logic would have to consider many things. For CIA created, is there a coupable battleground, is defcon at 2, is play of CIA created for OPs going to win the game before the event triggers? Seems already like a reasonable amount of effort to produce a dialog that most (new) players won't see after a few games against the AI because they'll have learned from their losses to be careful with those plays.
  8. RotorHed

    Chantry Games

    To be honest I don't think PlayDek are in the best financial health at the moment just because of the way they dropped mostly everything else they were working on just to focus on TS. As for Chantry, well that ship has sailed. Seems like a waste of time pestering the remaining staff. The reason it was closed down has been talked to death over on BGG - I doubt it's something the PD support staff have any opinion, control or even knowledge of.
  9. RotorHed

    DefCon 1 warning

    I understand what you're asking for here, and really I don't mind if such a system is implemented or not. However, I am wondering how much effort this kind of system would be for PlayDek. It seems like you want the game to dynamically assess the game state and provide advice on how to play - there are very few games that can do that. Chess programmes do but Chess is an entirely deterministic game - there's no luck. Not so with TS where interactions of cards and die rolls make determining what is about to happen a more complex task. I'm not saying it's impossible, it just seems like what is being asked for would take quite a while to implement. I have no idea what PlayDek's budget is for updating/patching this app, but assuming there is a limit I'd prefer to see the development time spent on soemthing more valuable.
  10. RotorHed

    DefCon 1 warning

    It seems like we should clarify the problem too - there are basically no doubt defcon losses vs uncertain defcon losses. As I see it there are two ways this can occur. 1) "stupid play" by a player at defcon 2 that leads "no doubt" to defcon 1. For example, Russian player playing Duck and Cover for ops at Decon 2 forgetting the card will lower defcon and end the game. OK, in this case it's a "silly" mistake and if there's an option, the USSR player probably wouldn't do it. 2) a player allows his opponent to force a defcon loss. This would be the poor play of say CIA created by the USSR where the US player can now choose to win the game by forcing defcon to 1. Or perhaps the play of Olympic games where the opponent can just boycott to force defcon 1. Option 1 can probably come with a warning - after all in a FtF this is the kind of play that probably would be discussed between the players. The original player gets the card back and still has to manage their hand to avoid play of course. I think as a penalty it would be reasonable for the opponent to know this card was played or about to be played. Ideally there'd be a system where the game is "ended" but the winning player can offer the take back option. Sometimes both parties might rather the game just end there but other times it might be nice to carry on. Scenario 2 though doesn't require a warning simply because it is up to the player who can win to choose to win that way. Seems to me there is nothing really to discuss in scenario 2 and no warning is necessary, not to mention that the warning would be a conditional one because the software can't be sure what the opponent might choose to do.
  11. RotorHed

    Reporting Player behaviour

    Why should it be? The clock is there for that very reason. Just choose a shorter timescale... If the opponent sends you offensive messages or is using some kind of exploit to win then OK.
  12. RotorHed

    DefCon 1 warning

    I don't understand the OP's point but I will admit a lot of people seem to be asking for something to do with Defcon related game losses. Personally I'm not in favour of too much hand holding - I'd rather understand and apply the rules for myself. The AI plays the way it plays precisely because those are the rules - if you don't play that way then it's an opportunity to learn from the AI. Without those ways of winning/losing, TS becomes a much more shallow game - warning the player unnecessarily makes the player lazy, makes the rules difficult to understand (the player is just told ''don't do something'' and they don't without understanding why) and makes the AI even less effective by removing an obvious winning strategy. In an ideal world everyone would be able to customise the game exactly how they like it, but I imagine PD have a limited budget and it'd be better spent improving the MP options with meaningful gameplay related stuff than hand holding people playing the AI.
  13. Did the opponent play a card that reduce the ops value of your cards? Blockade is a low value card so the opponents card would take precedent and may have meant you had no cards that qualified to play against blockade.
  14. RotorHed

    No idea where the AI is placing influence

    Click on the appropriate card history tab(s) at the bottom of the game window - you can see from there what move the AI made.
  15. RotorHed

    Twilight Struggle Kickstarter Backer Access

    Hi, Kickstarter: T0AD PlayDek : RotorHed Regards.
×