Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  1. Then you need to do some market research to understand your customer base, because I guarantee that you are incorrect. The responses on this forum, and the overwhelming feeling of the Twilight Struggle community on Board Game Geek, provide plenty of evidence of this. Serious board gamers (the type to play a game like "Twilight Struggle") have NO issue with being able to play for a draw once it becomes apparent that playing for victory is a hopeless cause. Imagine if a chess tournament changed the rules to say that "Black wins on a stalemate." Chess players would go BALLISTIC. The fact that your system doesn't currently implement a feature is not a reason to NOT implement that feature. That's called software development. Your statement makes as much sense as saying "'Nuclear Test Ban' is not in any of our other games, so we won't be adding it to 'Twilight Struggle.'" It's part of the game, not including it shouldn't be an option. First, how rare is it? I've probably played ~100 real life games in my lifetime - a draw on Wargames has been a possibility at least twice. It may be more rare for you, given your play style, but perhaps not for mine or others - and your implementation should allow multiple play styles to be explored and used. Second, frequency of an event is only one reason to fix a bug. Another is visibility amongst the customer base - and given the responses here and on BGG, the visibility of this issue is high relative to your perceived frequency of the event actually occurring. It's happening to enough users that some are actually creating accounts and posting about it on your forum. How many other users are seeing the issue but not bothering to report it? If multiple people are going out of their way to point out this issue to you, then it's almost certainly the tip of a largely unreported iceberg. Or "SALT Negotations" is in hand for either player - as occurred for me in a recent game (I specifically held it in hand in case I needed to grab "Wargames" on the next turn). Which is a fascinating strategic consideration, one which you've taken away from a game which otherwise advertises itself as a game of deep strategy. It's a strategic consideration which also comes up heavily in another game of deep strategy - chess. Again, imagine rewriting the rules so that stalemate ends in a forfeit (or even worse, a loss for white). It changes the game, and not for the better. This is not an interesting choice, both players have this option on almost every action round of the turn by the time turn 3 rolls around. I don't get that warning until I play the card. So if I'm playing "SALT Negotiations" to grab it, I'll have made a serious strategic mistake already - I can't "back out and choose a different path" at that point (since grabbing the card happened on a previous action round). Other users pointed out that previous action rounds could feature game- or board-altering decisions, with the intent to follow up with a Wargames draw, which fizzles once they realize (too late) that you've changed the rules on them. I get a Defcon warning when I play "Five Year Plan" as the Soviets with an otherwise empty hand. This is an example of the kind of "warning" that is incorrectly given to me - which has given me a rather loose attitude towards the accuracy of such "commit" warnings. Other bugs (in both gameplay and UI) have also given me a loose attitude about the accuracy of "commit" warnings. Given my knowledge of the game, without knowing that you specifically changed the rules, I would naturally assume that any warning about losing the game (rather than tying) was yet another UI bug.
  2. The bidding system is non-intuitive. Based on my understand, it worked correctly given the information you provided. "i chose usa with 0 inf" The game translates this as you saying "I want to play USA - but if my opponent wants to play USA, I will not pay him extra influence to convince him to play Soviets (so I can play USA)." "my opponent chose soviets with 1 inf" The game translates this as your opponent saying "I want to play Soviets - but if my opponent wants to play Soviets, I will pay him 1 extra influence to convince him to play USA (so I can play Soviets)." The game takes these two statements and determines that you can both play the sides you want to play (since you want to play different sides anyhow), so no one has to pay anyone extra influence for the privilege of getting the side they want. So when your opponent bid 1 as Soviets, he was only offering you 1 influence if you had wanted to play Soviets as well. Since you wanted to play Americans anyway, the bid is disregarded.
  3. Why would you deliberately introduce a new bug, to compound an already-existing bug that has been reported by multiple players? I do not understand it. You make a digital version of a board game, without understanding what board gamers expect or want. It's like you don't care about attempting to connect with your target audience at all. I take it that this new Wargames buggy behavior is nowhere documented in either the rules or the card, is it? So players who are either already familiar with the game or who are reading your own rulebook will now be fooled into losing their games unintentionally?
  4. I'm receiving notifications on my iPad that it's my turn, in games that I am not involved in. -I own Twilight Struggle for the iPad. -My girlfriend owns Twilight Struggle for the PC (Steam). My girlfriend used my iPad to log in to her Playdek TS account and play a few games. Ever since then, I receive a notification on my iPad whenever it's her turn in a game she's playing. Note that I have since logged in to my account from my iPad many times (and she has not re-logged in from my iPad), but I am still receiving her notifications. There does not seem to be a "Logout" function (but again, I've already logged in on top of her). I've also closed and rebooted the app, and rebooted the iPad itself. I am still receiving notifications for any game she is in, when it's her turn and she's not actively in the game on her PC. This seems like a major bug. I shouldn't receive notifications for an account just because that account, at one point in the past, logged in using my iPad. I should only receive notifications for games involving the player who has most recently logged in (i.e., me).
  5. Yeah, dragging the scoring card into the Quagmire isn't the right way to implement this. Dragging implies playing it INTO the Quagmire, as an escape attempt like any other card - but what's really going on is that you're putting the Quagmire "on hold" for the legal necessity of playing the scoring card.
  6. To see which cards were revealed again, look at the action round summary for that AR on the timeline at the bottom. I don't know if you will receive updates should the US receive new cards. According to the rules, you should, but it hasn't happened to me in-game yet, so I don't know if that's implemented.
  7. That's how the game's supposed to work, this is not a bug.
  8. This is a severe game-breaking bug. My client believed it was my opponent's turn, while my opponent's client believed it was my turn. Nevertheless, both clients had my clock ticking down. Unable to do anything, I ended up losing on time after having to sit there and watch helplessly for 15 minutes. Game: 56396 My client: Ipad Build 1.0.4(60) Situation: I was in the Quagmire, my opponent was suffering from Cuban Missile Crisis. I put a card into the Quagmire and was still stuck. Based on text-chat, I believe my opponent removed influence from Cuba to relieve Cuban Missile Crisis and then played a card to place influence in Cuba and Venezuela. He then believed it was my turn, to put another card into Quagmire. However, I received no indication that my opponent had done anything. The game log panel at the bottom showed an empty slot for USSR Turn7 AR2, indicating that my client was waiting for him to make a move. Also, the text at the top of the screen said "Waiting for opponent to decide..." However, my clock was still ticking down. (It was initially ticking down on his side, after my Quagmire discard - I presume that at some point, the clock switched to my side, after he made his move on his side). I don't understand how my clock can be ticking down while at the same time the text says "Waiting for opponent to decide..." - this should never be allowed to happen. Throughout the game, I lost connections to the server multiple times. I believe Playdek was having some server issues (my internet connectivity at home was fine, and my girlfriend was unable to log in to the TS server at all from her computer in the meantime, indicating the problem was on Playdek's end). Perhaps the IPad client received the message that my opponent's turn was over - without receiving the content of what he did in the turn? The clock ticked down, with my being unable to do anything. I rebooted the app twice in the meantime, to no effect. Eventually I lost. You can imagine my frustration at losing the game and an hour of my time for nothing. There should never be a situation where my client thinks it's both my opponent's turn ("Waiting for opponent to decide...") and also my turn (my own clock ticking down). The game should periodically check to see if both clients are synchronized, and this check should also be done every time the game is reloaded (due to a reboot or loss in connectivity).
  9. The online in-game text chat on the Ipad is nearly unuseable. More than 95% of the time, typing on the Ipad in-game keyboard results in severe lag - something like 2-6 seconds per keystroke. That is, I can type a bunch of characters - but it will go through slowly, responding one character at a time, at a rate of 2-6 seconds per character. (A solid minute to write a simple one-liner). The UI noticeably lags during this as well - for instance, the timer in the upper left is no longer smooth (jumping 2-6 seconds at a time). Finally, the IPad app often crashes during typing, so I have to reload the program. This doesn't seem to fix the behavior - typing in the game once again results in lag and often crashes yet again. This behavior is pretty consistent and constant. Rebooting the program doesn't help. Closing any other open Apps at the time also does not help. This bug is present in the latest build, 1.0.4(60).
  10. I guess I don't understand. Why would it "offend" someone to have their request for time rejected? What if my opponents starts demanding that I coup BGs when it's convenient for him? Should I worry that he'll be offended if I turn him down? Would you expect a timid player to go along with those demands - and thus result in fewer victories for timid players and more for bad sports? And on the flip side - if a player can truly be bullied into making moves that are poor for him (be it granting extra time or couping BGs), then doesn't that player deserve to lose? If you can't stand up for yourself in a game of politics and warfare, than you can hardly be expected to win... Anyway, I'm sorry, but I think your speculatively "demanding player" to be less credible a scenario than the one I've already experienced (a misconfigured game meant we had to have somebody's ranking suffer, in order to play the game we actually both wanted to play).
  11. 1. It would be nice to be able to add time to our opponent's clock. If they're having connectivity issues, or are just slower than expected, I would like to have the option to extend their time and continue an enjoyable game to its natural end, rather than when on a technicality (time). 2. Along the same lines, it would be nice to be able to offer the opponent a draw (which they can accept or reject). Many valid reasons exist to want a draw - perhaps I misconfigured a game for a friend, but since it's already started, I want to be able to end it and start over without affecting anyone's rankings (which a forfeit would do). Both options are standard in timed games, like competitive chess.
  12. The latest build fixes that issue,
  13. As of the latest build (, the space race "lights" do not update for the US. By "lights," I mean the little yellow indicators which show you can still space race once (or twice) this turn. When you space race as the US, the lights blink out - but they never come back on until the Soviets advance on the space race. They should be coming on at the beginning of each turn (when you are allowed to space race again) or when you advance to the right point (i.e., when you reach "Animal In Space," another light should come on as you can now space race a second time this turn). However, the lights only seem to update when the Soviets make an advancement. On a related note, the Defcon/MIlitary Ops lights also don't seem to ever work properly. The track indicates how many military ops each side has - and yellow "indicator lights" are present when a side does not have enough military ops to satisfy DefCon requirements yet. (i.e., if DefCon is 3, Soviets have 4 military ops, and US has 0 military ops, then four red "lights" should be on the Soviet track and 3 yellow "lights" should be on the US track - indicating that Soviets have 4 military ops and Americans are currently short of the requirement by 3). However, the Soviets NEVER seem to have indicator lights - no "yellow lights" even when they have 0 military ops (though they seem to work just fine for the American track).
  14. How does "Quickmatch" work, and how is it different from "Create Game?" Are Quickmatch games put in the general "Find Games" queue? If not, are they automatically paired with identical matches in a hidden "Quickmatch" queue? And if so, does this mean that a Quickmatch game has to be a perfect match to an already-existing Quickmatch game, in order to find an opponent this way? (i.e. exact opposite sides chosen, same game timer, same influence handicap, etc.)? If true, wouldn't this mean finding a game via Quickmatch would be very unlikely (as the player pool is relatively small and the number of options provide far too many filters of existing games)?
  15. Can someone explain the implementation of the bidding mechanic to me? Perhaps with some simple examples? It doesn't work how I expected. For instance, I picked "US" and bid 2. My opponent picked "USSR" and bid 1. As a result, I ended up being US, with 0 extra influence. This doesn't make sense to me - I would have expected to have at least 1 (as my opponent was willing to pay 1 influence to be USSR, and ended up as USSR...and I was willing to accept 2 influence to be US, and ended up as US). I like being US with +2 - if US has less, than I prefer being USSR. How would that be reflected as a bid? Thanks.
  • Create New...