GShock

I honestly didn't notice any difference at all between the normal rendering and the alternate rendering. Also, I've played normal without freezes (occasionally, but 80% of the times it does freeze)... yet the alt rendering did it for me. Happy it did for you too.

I have had crashes too, have you already tried to use the alternate render from the launcher? That basically solved it all for me.

The system is versatile enough to do any battle and with adjustments even a modern battle with tanks and planes. I think a poll here would be good but, personally, I'd start from the ancient times, Rome (vs Samnites, then Carthage, then Gauls, etc) perhaps?

The editor would allow the community to do wonders but I think after a first phase of ironing out bugs and glitches, the best thing to do is to implement big things that are currently missing but that are definitely needed. What amazes me is how a small team could build such a beautiful map, such a polished 1.0, such a fun game wtih a shallow learning curve. Easy to enjoy, hard to master... and when you do it's even more fun. This is an accomplishment that has very few precedents for small Dev Houses such as this one.

This is on Antietam: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tse4pbQp9cs There's a very interesting strategic reconstruction, personal notes of individual soldiers and, according to me, the campaign that led to the battle of Antietam could be very useful for a future DLC.

It's a huge list of changes and the fixes have truly impacted on gameplay.

I think I am finally understanding what you mean, David. There's probably a set of variables in-built that try to force the player onto a specific path for the evolution of the scenario that probably don't take fully into account the what-if philosophy the game has been built upon. History and "what if" can't coexist: Day 2 can be historical only if day 1 was. I guess this will be straightened out in the near future.

Thanks for the answer Husserl. It would be a good idea if this was specified in the scenario so that at the beginning of the battle, players know why it happened. I know there was a logic, I've always known, but I think the players would like the game to tell them why it their army withdrew from the hardly conquered objectives. You said "may" it means it's possible that it doesn't happen but when it does happen, the player should be told why it happened. In other words, the variable used, at the end of the previous battle should be declared before the following battle begins in the scenario introduction.

Oh yes, 1.0 is out and we expect a new patch anytime today.

Wait, one thing is to give information (data) and another thing is giving cues and tooltips (aids). Under some aspects I think the game needs to give some data it doesn't give (I want to know whether that enemy Bde is in cover or not, for example), under some aspects it does give too much data (I don't want to know the exact number of enemy troops in a Bde) and under the aids aspect, there's a definite need to improve the UI. The battle is as confusing as it should be but without the visual cues it only becomes less manageable. Now managing the battle better doesn't make any difference in regards with confusion but it gives you a tool to do exactly what you want to do.

I'm sure we'll see a lot of these things come true in the near future. Hey... it's Monday!

The conditions under which this may happen should be made public and explained in and out of the game. "This may happen" is not an explanation "this happens when X and Y conditions are met" is an explanation. The logical process behind the way next scenario begins should be thoroughlly explained because it may imply choices on behalf of the players. With multiple objectives, the choice would be to relinquish one and save the troops if that obj. was lost at the beginning of the next day. Not questioning the logic (whichever it is, since we don't know it atm), it just should be explained in the utmost detail.

Oh yes I like the sound of that!

I know, I've met some myself and already posted in pvt about some critical features I think the DEVs should be looking at.

It is at all possible, David. I just said lacking explanations on how this "arbitrariety" works there could also be a logical reason that is not flawed. I made an example on how a GOOD logic might work behind such decision but you may very well be right, I have no idea at this time. I am still at Day 1.

Only the explanation is flawed, not the logic. If you take a hill but your division takes 60% losses, or your arty has no ammo, you're better off go back to the main body of the army or you'll be overrun the next day. I'm just making an example but I agree this logic must be better explained. Since there are variables involved with the VP, it's better that the game explains what happens at the end of a scenario. In view of possible adjustments, in the future, we must assume the only FIXED situation is day 1. From day 2 everything may change and not necessarily the way it went in the real history. Albeit, even at the first day things may run different if Doubleday arrives later or arrives a bit more on the West. All these things would work but that logic must be explained. If you lose a VP on a scenario's decision this must be explained. It's not necessarily wrong but it has to be explained thoroughlly. Since you got multiple VPs, you might want to decide to go for just the easy one and take less losses and in this case you must hold it. Again, explanation before and after scenario load solves it all.

The list of mentioned fixes is inlcluding all major glitches spotted so far but the Revamp of gameplay for more challenge puts many possible things into the cauldron. No linux here, unfortunately...

Having ascertained you know what you're saying because you've studied it, I think you're right in reporting this and advocating a change. I'm sure with more players coming we'll see lots of these incoherent behaviors of the mini-campaign and the more we spot, the more can be fixed. Today is Friday and it's a possible patch day.

It is my understanding that LOS has glitches and bugs that are being corrected in the near future. Retouching is premature before the final result is achieved. New features are always good. Buttons, different methods of selection/formation/rally point/arrival point/waypoint, etc. etc. fall into this category but before going forward it's more important to build a solid, unglitched version of what we have. That diminishes the chances to build an alternative with good intentions and propositions (such as this one)... but that ends up creating a world of bugs. ahahahah he said PERHAPS Friday... and today is THURSDAY!

Perhaps this is supposed to be tied to the strategic situation at the end of the battle. If you take huge losses, even if you hold, the next morning you're overrun by superior forces and so you switch to better position in next battle but that ought to be clarified. I am actually excited to see the game in the making being molded into something as it dynamically evolves around the players' reports and requests (poll in other thread). Very excited.

Unsurprisingly, this poll has touched many many things I suggested on the TWC forums. We need to build numbers, revenue, solid user base and then... anything is possible.

It's a 1.0, be patient. Many many things will improve. Actually this is one of the most polished 1.0 I ever saw. ... and I saw hundreds.

You can rotate 2d maps anywhere that's not the point. i think rotation would help a lot with planning arty attacks (LOS). Considering the game has a strong solid base, I would highly recommend an altitude variability algorithm (with specific limitations). One thing is if you can fire from Mc Pherson's ridge to Oak ridge and a totally different strategy has to be applied if this can't be done because of intervening higher terrain or opposite height of the hills. This feature would make the same scenario have a virtually unlimited longevity.

Make sure to use/explain the great suggestions posted by REB Blunt here: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/1750-morale-doesnt-make-sense-to-me/?p=36996

A guy who drops is admitting the defeat. Anytime he drops he should take the loss and his opponent be credited for the win. I'd just fix it so that a player can be given a reputation by his opponent, so players can actually avoid players who play tricks. Also, a boost in points for players who complete the whole battle (regardless of the defeat) seems a good incentive.