Needing your opinion about saves

[fdsdh1]

3rd option is best, as I am not really familiar with the Gettysburg battle or locations I am often get confused when picking which areas to attack/defend

 

it would also be nice to greater explore the options, for example first time round I click defend this hill and fight that battle, but I also want to try the other options in differing combinations to see what happens,being able to save at each stage would allow this.

[lotharr51]

I think you should allow multiple saves. Put in an Iron Man type accomplishment for each side to note winning without save scrumming, maybe make this different for each of the AI's since winning against Determined can be dicey....

[squishband]

I'll vote 3. Partly because I like to have the choice, to test things out, especially at the beginning; before I'm used to the game mechanics. Then once I've gotten the hang of things, I can play a more restricted version.

What you might do is offer the option, but also explain how you feel about the different options yourself. After all, this is, as I understand it, a work of authorship and you are trying to tell things your way.

Anyway... after my first battle (which I narrowly won), I'm enjoying myself.

[MacBlain]

Unlimited quicksaves are possibly the worst invention in the history of videogames.

 

I'd appreciate an optional "Ironman Mode", and, more importantly, that the game be designed with the assumption that this is the real way to play, and that abusing savegames is cheating.

 

Not that games shouldn't have cheats available. Put in all kinds of zany ones.

[BeMyLittleGeneral]

Allow the saves, those who don't want it don't have to use it.

[Mr. Mercanto]

I voted for option 3. I don't intend to go back and correct mistakes but my philosophy is that more options are always better. 

[Harlequin]

I find option 2 the most attractive, personally, but certainly would have no complaint against option 3, which is what the majority seems to favour.

[TheRomanRuler]

#2 or #3, i voted for #2 

Also, at first i read "needing your opinion about slaves"

[sharky0922]

I read "slaves" 

[HugoBardo]

I voted #2

 

but i think that option #3 is also good if you can add an IRON MAN mode (look europa universalis iv for that), if you start a game in iron man mode, system allow you only one save. You can also link achievement to this special mode!

[TheRomanRuler]

I voted #2

 

but i think that option #3 is also good if you can add an IRON MAN mode (look europa universalis iv for that), if you start a game in iron man mode, system allow you only one save. You can also link achievement to this special mode!

Iron man mode is actually #1... So you are really asking for all of them

[Paul_KT]

I like to play through even with my mistakes, but I think a lot of people will like option 3 and if you want to play ironman and not restart, then just don't restart!

[TheRomanRuler]

I like to play through even with my mistakes, but I think a lot of people will like option 3 and if you want to play ironman and not restart, then just don't restart!

As long as mistake is not due to some issue in game, i also do the same, every general loses sometimes (well, unless you are Napoleon, 99% of his battles were won) and mistakes are one of most important factors in changing course of history. Well, in history books at least. 

[RH Lee]

There's nothing wrong in my mind with having the freedom to have an many saves as you wish, but to also offer an optional "iron man" or "hard core" mode.  I've played Diablo 3 extensively on hard core and realize that when my character dies and I have to start all over from the very beginning it was my choice to take that path.  But if D3 forced everyone to play "hard core" with any death being permanent, I don't think they'd have seen the success and sales that they have.  Even if you do offer "hard core" there's no reason not to offer it as Choice 2 above - if someone's stuck and maybe frustrated but doesn't want to quit completely, why not let them relax with another game playing the opposite faction, then go back to their first game when they're ready.

 

You do want people to play as much and as often as they can, right?  You don't want frustration and annoyance with the restrictions of the system to chase people away, right? And as a famous game designer once said "If a feature isn't fun, and doesn't make playing my game more fun, then I don't need it in my game."

 

I would suggest that the bottom line is as many have expressed -> there's no reason to force a "hard core" approach on anyone. Tarfman said it eloquently "Freedom is always best."

 

But if your systems won't allow a dual option, then I hope you'll go with #3.  

[mikefitzgames]

Option 3

I'm not a full on gamer and like to learn from my mistakes;but it would take me ages to go through the whole campaign; just to re-try a different scenario.

[Lannes]

Freedom is power. Restrictions are giving power to someone else. I paid for a game, I want control over it. If I want to cheat, that's my business. If I want to restrict my action and make it harder, I think some call it ironman, that's okay too, as long as I have control. My preference is for total control over scenarios, troops, everything. Then, I can tailor the game to what I think is fun, and not have it tailored for me by someone who thinks something else is fun. The more freedom, the more possibilities to keep interested.

[thekev506]

One of the things I've enjoyed about UG (probably because I'm not too great at strategy games) is trying something out, saying 'ok, let's see where this went wrong and how I could do things differently' and applying that.  A wide-open saving system would allow that even more 

[RichardMcCor]

option 3 - i see no need to restrict this side of the game. Makes experimenting less time consuming.

[Jethro]

I like what Paradox does.  If you want your rewards or badges or whatever, you have to play on hardcore mode, otherwise you can do as you please.

 

If you really want hard core, though, should you be able to start battles over whenever things go badly?

 

(Of course, a PC user can always F4 out of just about anything.  Hard to stop that, methinks.)

[Pierre]

No need for "ironman" mode or anything, this isn't a competitive ranked game or anything.  I want to be able to go back into the different phases of the battle and replay them, and also be able to choose different things during the planning stage.  As Confederates after encircling the Feds in phase 2 of the battle, I had the choice between pressing the attack or waiting for reinforcements.  I chose to wait for reinforcements and won a defensive battle against the Union troops and got an Epic Victory.  It'd be cool to go back and see how I would do if I had chosen to attack immediately instead of waiting, since replaying the whole game would lead to a different result obviously.

[Tormidal]

No need for "ironman" mode or anything, this isn't a competitive ranked game or anything.  I want to be able to go back into the different phases of the battle and replay them, and also be able to choose different things during the planning stage.  As Confederates after encircling the Feds in phase 2 of the battle, I had the choice between pressing the attack or waiting for reinforcements.  I chose to wait for reinforcements and won a defensive battle against the Union troops and got an Epic Victory.  It'd be cool to go back and see how I would do if I had chosen to attack immediately instead of waiting, since replaying the whole game would lead to a different result obviously.

 

I think you misunderstand the ironman mode we are referencing. It isnt about ranks or competition, its about making the game harder. Thats the point of ironman. And thats why Game Labs should make it an option.

[David Fair]

Making the game more of a challenge should be a priority.

[reminder]

Slithly offtopic, but does anyone know where the running savegame is?

[MikeK]

One ongoing for each side was my choice.

 

I will say that having lots of saves is invaluable if doing an AAR to save likely screenshot opportunities.  

 

The problem there, as with open saves in many games, is finding what you were looking for later in a "wall of text" list of save games by save time and date.  

 

A good save game system helps identify the tree and branch with enough information to locate the save in relation to the right game "universe" and other saves.

 

For example, a folder-like or genealogy-like branching structure showing the various forks as well as the iterative saves with useful info such as in-game date, time, side, maybe even player save comment (such a useful option!).  

 

It is then easy to find what is needed and to prune the rest. 

[MikeK]

Ironman is entirely a matter of player self-control. If implemented by restrictions, the appropriate restrictions are usually debatable.

 

Implemented in a game, it tends to magnify the impact of bugs (especially intemittent ones) and design weaknesses that might otherwise be addressed by a reload, editor, or restarting an episode.