Needing your opinion about saves

[Nick Thomadis]

Ultimate General: Gettysburg offers a multi-day dynamic battle campaign which is divided in parts and can be saved from any point of its progress (during or after a battle).

 

At present it is allowed only one active campaign save.

That means if you have an ongoing campaign you cannot abuse a multiple save system to win because any mistake you do is irreversible unless you restart the campaign. The disadvantage of this is that you cannot start a second campaign with different side.

 

We would like to know your opinion about how you would prefer to have the save system to work in general.

Please vote.

[derblaueClaus]

I've voted for the 3rd option. I think that savesystems that limit the options are an unessecary frustrating and artifical way to increase the difficulty level of a game. Good games don't need that.

[N.C.rebel]

I voted number 1 but Claus also has a good point.

[Crowgasm]

Voted for option 3, for various reasons. I think it's the norm across game types, by now (some notable exceptions). It seems appropriate here.

[Tarfman]

I think people should be allowed to choose how they want to play the game rather than be railroaded into a way that the dev thinks you should play. Freedom of choice is Always better.

[Tomakaze]

I think you could take a page out of the paradox playbook.  They have the "Ironman Mode" which locks certain options and auto saves constantly and is the only mode in which you can earn achievements.  Everything else is option 3.  Just as Claus argues that option 1 is artificial difficulty, I could argue it as a a two-way street and save games have become artificial depressants to game difficulty anyway.  

 

So how about all three options together? Just a thought. 

[machtharry]

Third option for sure!

I always play "Ironman Mode" in every game that allows it (XCOM, EU IV...) and i force my self to do so in games that dont have ironman like Hearts of Iron, TW and more but i still can play this way if you can save at every point with multiple saves. But people that dont like to play like that should not be forced to do so. Best case - give a choise at the campaign start if you want to be able to have multiple saves or not.

 

Please do NOT limit the number of possible campaigns running! That would be the worst case imo. For example when i game comes out i imagine i will play a single and a multiplayer campaign at the same time. You could say one as CS and one as US but most likely the single player will be over sooner, so i will want to play the other side as well.

But theires not just that mp issue, maybe a friend of mine wants to test the game when he visits me or more than one person in a family wants to play the game or just someone wants to play a hard and a easy campaign at the same time for some reason.

 

Overall: Give the player as much choises as possible! If someone wants to abuse the savesystem in singleplayer, let him do. I and most people wont but who cares?

[David Fair]

Option 3 offers more freedom and respects peoples time.  

 

 

People always have the option to start a new game and play according to their own self-imposed preferences and constraints.  

[Ink]

#3 is the most obvious best all around way. Those who play iron will mode won't have any problem to restrict themselves but people who like to re-play saves (not only in an abuse way, but also try something new) will be frustrated

[CmdrMctoast]

I like option 3 as well as I will tend to play many campaigns with different strategies.

[Daniele Troilo]

Indeed the third option seems to be the most equilibrate in terms of freedom of choice given to the players. 

[Grim.Reaper]

Option#3...if someone buys a game, they should be able to play it however they see fit...if they scheme the game, then it is only them losing out on a good experience.  I personally hate restrictive saves and also "locked" scenarios/items since then the game dictates me.

[RogueLeader]

People dont know what is good for them.  Do what is best for the game experience later on if the game is a hit more options for now I think limit is the best choice.  No chance to correct this is war not redo and try again people will abuse it and it will hurt the game in the long run.  What you do now will be expected in later games that are created.  If it is casual the people want let them play Rome 2 with magic buttons.

[Myes!]

The third option. Frankly, I find it baffling that you even found it neccessary to ask.

You can just add an "Iron Man"-mode for the masochists, and let the rest of us decide for ourselves how we choose to play our own damn game.

[DaveWoodchuck]

My personal preference is for the second option, but I feel that the third option will be more marketable.  Plus, and this is a big one, multiple saves can protect the player from  a dreadful and unpredictable corrupted file error of some sort erasing all their progress in one fell swoop.  

I think the one save per playthrough fits the theme of the game better, and it opens up the possibility for each player to have a truly unique experience every time they play.  The point of creating a rich series of alternate scenarios was to give the player a sense of what might have been; when properly designed, it should be enjoyable despite any setbacks on the battlefield.  Giving multiple saves can "cheapen" the experience the developer is trying to convey, but I suppose that is a decision best left to the minds who are designing it.

I appreciate being asked like this, though.  After my experiences with DarthMod and the like, I am willing to trust that the right decision will be made.

[RogueLeader]

Overcoming setbacks on the battlefield losing a great unit for example and still winning the game without do overs again and again should set this game apart from others option 2.

[Brutus]

Don't impose arbitrary limits on people, especially for a single player feature - design 101.  Everyone is fully capable of limiting their own save behavior if they don't want to have redos and the like.  Option 3 is the only option.

[Star]

Definitely the 3rd option. I hate limitations on my save ability for the fact that I may have to stop and do some real life stuff at some point in a game.

[Tormidal]

3rd option is best overall for the general populace, but an ironman-esque choice should be available when starting a new save/campaign.

This way, the people that want the "no going back" experience can get it, and the people that are a little less confidence have the ability to go back and try again.

[CptBanzai]

3rd option Allow multiple saves and give full freedom. Because everything feels too forced with 1 save. And it will add to the replay value. It's less frustrating.

[Fencible]

3rd option for me. When my son comes home for a visit he likes to bliss out on my game machine. He doesn't play games at any other time and does not have a game machine of his own (much more disciplined than his dad) - SO I'd like him to have the freedom to play his own campaign without me having to give up one that I am currently playing.

[Doge]

I don't know why anyone would want to limit the player. I have a suggestion though, not sure if it's been requested yet. In most games, there's an 'Ironman' mode where you only have one save, so pretty much like now; just that it's an extra option. Just for the sake of content and achievements.

[Tarfman]

I don't know why anyone would want to limit the player. I have a suggestion though, not sure if it's been requested yet. In most games, there's an 'Ironman' mode where you only have one save, so pretty much like now; just that it's an extra option. Just for the sake of content and achievements.

Second the ironman mode.

[Myes!]

Second the ironman mode. 

 

 

Perhaps you could call it "Ultimate General -Mode", or something.

[Tormidal]

Perhaps they could call it "Ultimate General Mode", or something.

 

If I could give you karma...I certainly would.