General staff

[Grim.Reaper]

I bought into this, but starting to regret it...supposed to be out by now and still figuring things out...too bad

https://www.general-staff.com/why-this-game-is-taking-so-long/?fbclid=IwY2xjawE3LzlleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHcbP57VHrTeJkjhGrDDzK-iSJowyalrThBXYnFQi-xTPRgqLoL7GXowNkw_aem_Z2miEvc1IJpv_fNEXGOXJQ

[Old TImer]

It looks like there could be a pretty good game in there if he can polish it off.
19th Century warfare?   Yes please.

[Grim.Reaper]

Sure, if and when it gets there..

[Senex]

I usually don't play many war games at the operational/tactical level.  But this is from the people who did "UMS: The Universal Military Simulator" and is based on it.  So it's a first-day buy.  When that day comes, that is.

[ArizonaTank]

It is rare that you see so much detail about the technology used in a game's development, and how technology choices and the changing business landscape affect them.

I don't know game development, but I spent many, many years in the trenches of business software development. The types of problems he describes could have come right out of a software development project management case study.

The longer a software development takes, the higher the chance it will be obsolete by the time it is released.

It is also a reminder that game software these days is often highly dependent on an underlying game engine, framework and/or set of development tools. This is particularly true for indie, and small publisher projects (larger studios sometimes have their own in-house engines and tools; ie. Clauswitz Engine). This dependency was brought into focus a year ago by Unity's sudden change (for the worse) in its licensing scheme. 

In General Staff's case, Microsoft pulled active support of the XNA framework, and sliced the project deep into the rough. 

But it sounds like they are on the right path now. I hope so. Looking forward to this one.

I am also a UMS and UMSII fanboy