Why buy the game?

Talk about the game or make suggestions.

Why buy the game?

Postby Prince Hood » Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:38 pm

The difference between the demo and the full version is noted in the demo quick guide as:

• Play more than 60 minutes (there's literally thousands of battles to play)
• Play two harder skill levels against the computer
• Post your ranking on the global ranking server
• Fine tune your attacks with more weapon controls
• Original sound track
• Always have access to the latest full version
• 30-day unconditional money-back guarantee

The list does not do service to what you really get in the full version. Sure, we can all figure out what the 60 minute limit is all about. And it is pretty obvious that the Beginner level won't give the same challenge as Intermediate or Expert levels. But what about the "Fine tune your attacks with more weapon controls"? If you don't have the full version, you really don't know what that means. Well, I'm here to tell you what you're missing.

In the full version you get individual control over each weapon mount, or any combinations of mounts. You see that cruiser a mere 40 points away from death, and have a mighty battleship zeroing in on it. Why fire all eight guns when one solid hit will take the cruiser down? In the full version, you simply select one mount from the battleship and take the shot. If successful, you can then take shots at other targets in range with the other six guns (or simply save the ammo).

Equally better, you can select shell type. You can choose armor piercing (AP), Semi AP (SAP) or High Explosive (HE). AP has a better chance against armor, but does less damage than SAP or HE when it does penetrate. In general, you use the AP against the heavy armor, choose SAP for the weak armor, and go with HE for the unarmored (e.g., Merchants). Let's take an example: Say you have a battleship with 15 inch guns going after a Merchant. The Merchant doesn't have armor, so an AP and an HE round have the same chance to penetrate for a solid hit. However, AP only does 75 DP whereas the HE will do 150. Same chance of hit, but double the damage. Basically, when going after a Merchant, the battleship should switch to HE and then (using the single mount technique described in previous paragraph), fire one mount at a time. It is possible (in the full version) for a battleship to down a full health Merchant with a one mount shot (two HE hits do 300 damage). This level of fine tuning is completely missing from the demo.

The combination also works better when capital ships are going against destroyers. In the demo you are usually stuck with knocking off destroyers with AP. In the full version you can do it faster and more efficiently with SAP shells. And if we want to go one step deeper into strategy, the up-armored destroyers help significantly against SAP shells. Hence, in the full version, an up-armored destroyer adds additional complications for the enemy heavy hitters as it forces the enemy to go from the higher damage (but less penetrating) SAP to the AP shells.

And there you have it. If you just stick with the demo, aside from being stuck with fighting the miserable beginner AI, you are missing a significant aspect of the game. The additional weapons controls are a big factor in optimizing your attacks. A factor most needed as you progress to the more intelligence Intermediate and Expert level AI opponents.

The full version is a "must buy". The demo, regardless of time limit, just doesn't do justice to the additional dimension the full version provides.
Prince Hood
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 9:32 pm

Postby Meatboy Dogfood » Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:51 pm

Forget not that the game is constantly updated. You now have the russian fleet added in the last update, also you have access to the devloper with your ideas through this fourm. The said Russian started out as a request by a player in this fourm. Try getting that type of service from ohh say Blizzard.
Meatboy Dogfood
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 9:16 pm

I DONT THINK SO...!!!!

Postby aracuan_77 » Thu Dec 29, 2005 4:03 am

Meatboy Dogfood wrote:Forget not that the game is constantly updated. You now have the russian fleet added in the last update, also you have access to the devloper with your ideas through this fourm. The said Russian started out as a request by a player in this fourm. Try getting that type of service from ohh say Blizzard.


Dear Meatboy,

i dont think that this really happening!I m talking about both the updating and the requests!
If u check the first edition 1.0 i think and compare it with the 2.1 u will find minor differences.i have create an article in the forums but no one seem to care or even to just give me an answer!!!
viewtopic.php?t=812

and i m saying this because the improvements that were asked by a lot of people were many:additional cards,explosion events,etc.also in my thread i have asked or proposed,and thats the way it should be,that EVERY COUNTRY SHOULD HAVE ITS OWN CHARACTERISTICS!!!!(for advantages that these countries really had!!!GERMAN SHIPS WERE BETTER ARMOURED IN JUTLAND,ONLY THE BRITISH HAD THE SUPERDREADNOUGHT DIVISION ARMED WITH 15'' GUNS).the addition of the russian fleet CHANGE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.NO DIFFERENT CLASSES OF SHIPS,NO SPECIAL ADVANTAGES-DISADVANTAGES FROM THAT COUNTRY,NOTHING.JUST A DIFFERENT FLAG AND NAMES.
also,andrew and his fellowship seem to forgot that BATTLESHIPS AND BATTLECRUISERS AND ARMORED CRUISERS HAD SECONDARY ARMAMENT!!!!WHY IN THE VERSION OF 2.1 THEY DIDNT ADD THESE????OR WHY THEY DIDNT SAY A COMMENT ABOUT MY HISTORICAL BASED OPINION EVEN???WHY THEY DIDNT SAY ANYTHING???AND WHERE IS THEREFORE DEAR MEATBOY THE ACCESS TO THE DEVELOPER???
and that s why i consider that the after sales service regarding the updating does not working as it should be,its awfull.it is completely unacceptable to post something,do not get reply for this then a guy like you shouts loudly..."u have access"...in every forum of every game the opinion of the players is the most valid point for improvements of that game...
when u got no answer for your opinion then all that u have said are politicians words!
aracuan_77
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 2:24 pm

Postby Meatboy Dogfood » Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:13 pm

Heh. Just because you ask does not mean that it gets done . Remember in the end this is the devlopers baby and he decices what it goes or no. Add to that he has to balance against new projects and real life.

That being said you still have a far better chance to get idea implemented in this game then you would have in big Companyies. Hasbro cares diddly about your ideas, all they want you to do is buy the next thing they offer, Andreww always works to improve his products, and looks at what posters are asking for and works them into the game as they fit into the games concept.

Concept you say? Battleship chess was designed to be a pickup game that would play quickly. While it has some deep stratagy to it, the game was designed for the casual player not the WW1 navel simulation player. In short your laundry list of requests are more fitting for a full blown Naval simulation not a quick game.

Ideas do get used by the devloper although they may not be exactly the way you want em, you want it exact? Learn to code and devolp your own game. You say you shout loudly for your Ideas, thats cool and good to do, but keep in mind that all that you ask cant be done. Never stopped me from adding in my two cents however. You want to see one of my failed Ideas do a search for the words "Doomsday Seed" :lol:

I guess you will always find me in Andrews corner because he does listen and constantly improves and incorperate Ideas into his games. Why elese do you think that Stun and BC are still seeling strong and remaing on hard drives for so long?
Meatboy Dogfood
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 9:16 pm

Postby Insayn » Fri Dec 30, 2005 7:53 am

Hey! I don't come in here normaly. Meat dude has got it under control, normaly.
Aracuan, Im not going to defend decisions or the game at all. Flames is too strong of a word, still, you came out of nowhere with both barrels. That puts people on the defensive and that was the point no doubt. That said, "hey, listen to me goddammit" I hear you.
Just spend some time and look history of STUN. Meat dude knows better than me in that area. Alot of stuff has been suggested for the game that never made it into the game.
Maybe meat dude is right, this forum has a lack of flames to balance everything out. We are all trying to be light side jedis when we want to be evil darth dickhead. :lol:

All I am saying is: BC was meant to be a short semi-simulation
(unrealistic) game about early battleship age. Don't feel like you have to be on the defensive and reattack. Of course your Ideas were cool. Apezone is one dude. He does read these posts. He hardly ever posts, but he did read this thread. You did get heard. No matter how loud you scream. :wink:
Insayn
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 5:21 am
Location: Missouri

Postby Prince Hood » Fri Dec 30, 2005 12:21 pm

While it has some deep stratagy to it, the game was designed for the casual player not the WW1 navel simulation player. In short your laundry list of requests are more fitting for a full blown Naval simulation not a quick game.


That pretty much sums up my thought when I followed the responses in this post. Many a game I've seen ruined by developers adding feature after feature after feature....until they kill the essence of the game. BC has a superb essence. At this point, change often has a better chance of reducing that essence, rather than contributing to it.
Prince Hood
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 9:32 pm

NO,I DONT AGREE

Postby aracuan_77 » Sat Dec 31, 2005 1:13 am

Dear all,

First of all i would start from Stun.i ve never seen this game,i have never read about it and the forums,so i dont care what is going on there.perhaps there as u claim the requests are hearing and get satisfied better.i think we must seperate these 2 games for time being.
My problem was not that i ve made requests and they didnt got satisfied.of course i do not demand absordly things,and of course the improvements are in the creators mood if to make them or not.
i m angry for 2 reasons:
1,that no one has made a thread like me telling an opinion about the so called improved version.therefore,i m sure that some of the creators of the game saw this,but they didnt tell me,us,why they didnt add some of these(they actually add almost none).they didnt say anything.and since they didnt say anything,i consider this a very bad(donkey)attitude.dont forget that the game is not free,they are getting paid and they are getting paid well,so its their job if not satisfying the requests,at least make a comment on these.
2,i cant hear things like"game will be much complicated"or"its not a fully simulator of ww1"or"its a quick game".i dont think that thse words have any touch to reality,cause:
the additions were asked by many,and not only me,were not as huge as u may some want to appear:lets start from the already existing ones:
2a)in the battleships or battlecruisers and armored cruisers they could very easily add some small guns of same calibre of the destroyers are using.no new calibre.true?true.
2b)the addition of 1 or 2 extra cards,explosion events,could be so difficult?
2c)the country's special advantages could be so difficult?
and if they didnt add those,it was so difficult to them to just say"no i cant"or"yes i can"or"just interesting point of view"?
and that s why i was angry.
ending,i m telling again that i didnt got mad cause my requests didnt took place.i gone mad cause 1,they didnt reply and i m not the only one,and cause they try to trick us with improvements that i call just peanuts,and they present them as huge!!! :shock:
and then when i m seen words like"u have access to the developer"then i m freaking.ok,u cant reply to all requests,ok,u cant even reply to all opinions,but please dont throw mudd(good words that they are not true) in my eyes by saying this...
PS: to lyndon,please my friend,dont give cheap excuses that"andrew is busy cause of christmas"cause this thread is there over 2 months...
PS:to meatboy:please dont tell me that bc is a quick game!when this game at the same time supports the 10 time war????!!!!if u have played the 10 time war,or even the 5 time war,there is a save by rank ability,then u have seen that its not tha kind of quick,dont u think?and of course i have no problem on this.on the contract.so,definately no,these kind of improvemnets wont make the game"slow"or heavy.i take it that andrew got paid well for this,and now he is boring to make some new improvements.please admitt what is obvious!!!
sorry if my words were too sharp,but after all this is my opinion,i m a very honest guy,we have democracy i think,happy new year to all. 8)
aracuan_77
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 2:24 pm

Postby Andrew Ewanchyna » Sat Dec 31, 2005 10:04 am

Hi aracuan et all,

Sorry for not replying to your post, but I figured someone else would if it was of general interest.

When it comes to posts like yours, you have to cut me some slack. EVERYONE has ideas on how to change a game, so I've found it better to let people get it out here on the forums and then let others reply. I'll do so if it strikes me as a really good idea or if it's from a long time poster. But generally these forums are for people to discuss the games.

You need to differentiate between, "having access to the developer" and contracting the developer to create your own personal game. At 20 odd dollars a pop, you'd only get about 1/2 an hour of my time. I think others understand this and are more diplomatic in getting their ideas across. It's not like you're paying me extra for new updates, now is it?

When I feel like updating a game, what I'll do is go through the forums and pick out all the ideas that I think would be good for the game and won't require too much trouble. Yes, the latter is important given I need to continue developing NEW things so I can pay my bills and feed my family.

And the rest are right, Battleship Chess is a simple naval game, not meant to be too detailed or too realistic. I don't believe that games have to be detailed to be fun. I was not trying to make a wargame. Try Tiller or Kogar games for such details.
Andrew Ewanchyna
Site Admin
 
Posts: 837
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2002 4:11 pm

Postby Prince Hood » Sat Dec 31, 2005 12:45 pm

Andrew Ewanchyna wrote:When I feel like updating a game, what I'll do is go through the forums and pick out all the ideas that I think would be good for the game....


Take note everyone. Presentation of your ideas is important here. You are basically "selling" your upgrade ideas to the developer.

How you post your ideas is half the battle. Try short bulleted lists of suggestions, followed by individual paragraphs detailing why you think each idea is good.

Don't oversuse CAPS.
Don't divert attention from your ideas with extraneous stuff.
Prince Hood
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 9:32 pm

Postby Meatboy Dogfood » Sat Dec 31, 2005 5:50 pm

One more. to the list above.

Dont expect your idea to even make it, or be used whole cloth. If Andrew plucks it up be plesantly suprized that you made game play better for everybody.
Meatboy Dogfood
 
Posts: 662
Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 9:16 pm

AT LAST SOMEONE APPEARS

Postby aracuan_77 » Sun Jan 01, 2006 5:52 am

Dear all,

First of all i would like to wish my best,to you and your families,and may the 2006 to bring you desires what the 2005 didnt.

Andrew,

I m glad that at last you reply.this was the only i wanted;just an opinion from you or your co-operators(i think that meatboy is one of them-i might be wrong or having no co operators at all).it wasnt so much dificult i think.
i hate repeating my self all the time but some seem to not undestand.i m telling you again that i dint demand from anyone to improve something.i simply make proposals as all,but i need a comment and an explanation about these things you find them correct or not.i think this is a very important thing for you to do,since you said that by this game you feed your family.
yes,battleship chess is a simple naval game,and i dint propose detailed functions like silent hunter's 3 or something similar simulator.we all propose something that was very simple and wouldnt affect or load the game with a lot of details;on the contract,it would have more choices and bigger variety,therefore more fascinating.
therefore i would like a short comment of the following things:the second line is why i think these:
*possible to add the secondary armament(4 guns the destroyer has already i mean)in BB,BC,AC?U agree on this or not?
why?for giving the importance that a capital ship had
*possible to create special benefits of a selected country?u agree or not?
why?for a more strategic choice and different tactic against other navy
*possible to add a light cruiser(by lyndon s idea)?u agree or not?
*possible to add a card that a wounded ship lays smoke into a small area to cover itself?u agree or not?(idea not from me,great though)
*possible to add chances for a ship that is under fire for a long time to be exploded?u agree or not?(idea not from me as well)
*possible to create different classes of ships,not the typical BB with 8 guns(and the BC with 8 also)?u agree or not?
why?for the advantages except the captain rating.imagine a BC SEYDLITZ Class with 10 x 13,5cm attacking a BC Tiger class of 8 x 13,5cm.
*you think that making some of these additions will launch the game play to outstanding,higher,standards increasing that way the sales or not?
thats all i ask.i want your comment,from you or someone from your staff personell.nothing more.of course it will be nice if anyone else say his opinion.
these things above are not only my opinions.these are facts,events,that really took place in naval history.all the people who get into the nice trouble to write something to you,by their ideas,want to help you,to increase your income.do not shut the door to their faces.i m very sad when i seeing threads without any answer.it s a same.
u have read a lot of history,to make a game like this.i m reading history since i was 6.24 years.
u said u dint create a war game.but BC is a war game.battleships dont throw flowers or cakes.it has fun though,quick when it needs and slow when it also needs the player to make it(1-10 time battle,answering to meatboy)
with honor and respect,
Waiting for your answer
aracuan_77
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 2:24 pm

Postby Prince Hood » Sun Jan 01, 2006 1:15 pm

I agree all of your recommendations are worthy of "consideration". Are they worthy of incorporation? Time will tell. I'm sure Andrew would feel the same. He already said he looks through the forums for ideas. Hence, the ideas will be "considered".

There are lots of steps between "considered" and "incorporated". If all you want is a "yes" for considerations, that's basically already been offered. If you want a "yes" for incorporation, that can't be done right now.
Prince Hood
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 9:32 pm

Postby Andrew Ewanchyna » Sun Jan 01, 2006 5:20 pm

Happy New Year everyone.

Here's my thoughts on aracuan_77's ideas.

1) Secondary armament would complicate the simplicity of the game and might make smaller ships less useful.

2) Special benefits for different countries would be interesting but I can see that it would probably lead to people demanding seperate graphics for each ships type. This would be a major art buget increase, something I won't do as a free update.

3) Light cruisers aren't understood well by the layman, so why confuse them. Also, light cruisers were often used as destroyer leads, something that can be simulated now by a destroyer with upgraded guns/armor.

4) I see no benefit to adding smoke to such a small game board.

5) I intend on adding munition explosions one of these days.

6) I chose to keep ship classes as simple as possible. In fact, I only added the Battlecruiser class because of their significance during WWI and the fact that I think they're cool (okay, it was more the last reason :). Does the game Battleship have exotic ship classes? Of course not. It's not needed. See point 2 about art bugets.

7) No, I don't honestly believe any of these ideas will increase game sales. I also, unfortunately, don't have a staff to answer people's questions. This is why the regular posters are so important to small developers, likey myself. In case I haven't said it, THANKS to all those who have answered questions in the past.

I didn't create BC to be played by your regular group of wargamers, instead I was aiming at people who were tired of playing Battleship.
Andrew Ewanchyna
Site Admin
 
Posts: 837
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2002 4:11 pm

thank you guys

Postby aracuan_77 » Sun Jan 01, 2006 11:13 pm

Hello again to all.

First of all i would like to thank you for replying.
Dear prince hood,
i m glad you understood me.yes,the only i wanted is just an opinion,a consideration as your wise words were.of course i didnt demand something else.now if these are going to be created"incorporated"as u again correct say,is something that i cannot demand.its purely in andrew s mood.of course i cannot interfear to his job.i was very glad that u agree in some off my points of view however.

about andrew s views i dont agree in some but of course its up to him.he is the boss.replying to your points of view Andrew,i will tell you what i believe:

1,secondary armament i think it will give the capital ship the really importance.still,if the secondary armament is added the destroyer will be able to do the damage.the secondary armament will simple discourage this kind of mission.battleships and bc are i think the most precious and strong pieces in a naval battle.therefore the destroyer should not be easy to hit them without paying a cost.destroyers major role was to prevent torpedo attacks.not to make missions of engaging or destroying capital ships,except in very special occasions(bismark).in my bc,expert level,usually a 70% the first ship that will atack my capital ship is an enemy destroyer.
2,no need to create seperate ship designs in order to add the countries benefits i think.it would fitt perfectly with the existing ones.the only u can add its just a 25% defence if someone chooses germany(based on historical facts that german ships were much better armoured and this proved clearly in jutland)and to tother s countries benefits i can help you.
3,about light cruisers its up to you.i m a fan however of different types of ships and i think not the only one in forums-and a new type will be refresh the battles and be loved by all i think
4,adding smoke was a tactic that been used extensively.i will give an example:when i saying laying smoke,there is no need to cover huge areas of the map.the function will be a card before the ship will move just like mine laying,but smoke will cover the ship a square behind(like mine laying)the ships position of course and the ship's a square infront.it s like mine laying both infront and behind.then the player after using this card will have to move either infront or behind,leaving a 50% to the enemy to hit it again.of course it can be added in the sides,in a cross shape.THE DURATION OF THE SMOKE WILL BE 1 TURN.
5,i cant wait to see this!!!! :D
6,of course,design new ships its indeed a big work.i agree with you in that.
7,a refreshed game will always attract attention and if major improvements are to be made i think yes it will increase sales.it depends on the improvements.i know 2 of my friends in russia(i m greek) bought this game only because the russian fleet added!!!so if good motives are,yes sales could be increased.

thats all from me now.i m satisfied by answering me the questions in my previous questions.the decisions about the rest are yours of course.
thank you all. 8)
Last edited by aracuan_77 on Mon Jan 02, 2006 12:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
aracuan_77
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 2:24 pm

Postby em2nought » Sun Jan 01, 2006 11:49 pm

Andrew Ewanchyna wrote:
5) I intend on adding munition explosions one of these days.


Cool! :D
em2nought
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 9:49 pm


Return to Battleship Chess

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron