This took me completely by surprise and is apparently now available for early access for $10 on Steam, with a projected release date of end of March.
Turn based, hex-based ground combat set in the SotS universe. Supposedly plays like Panzer General with the addition of battle cards to be played. The only thing holding me back is that I still don't trust Kerberos' assessment of the state of the game, otherwise I'd be on this like stink on a monkey.
Who will take one for the team?
One criteria of me participating in an early access is the developer has to have a reasonable track record in releasing games.....because of the sots release, I will stay on the sideline for this one unless there are extremely glowing reviews.
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on February 15, 2014, 06:01:29 AM
One criteria of me participating in an early access is the developer has to have a reasonable track record in releasing games.....because of the sots release, I will stay on the sideline for this one unless there are extremely glowing reviews.
I agree. As I said, if it wasn't Kerberos I would jump right in.
I've been a very strong supporter of Kerberos, but this title looks like garbage. Sorry. If I really want a turn-based beer and pretzels strategy game with a sci-fi setting, I guess I'll go buy Pandora.
IMHO, it was Paradox's management of Kerberos that brought the SoTS2 disaster.
SOTS 1 and its expansions were pretty darn good.
I've (like almost always) jumped in on the GP EA program. But I've yet had time to check it out.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 15, 2014, 07:41:30 AM
I've been a very strong supporter of Kerberos, but this title looks like garbage. Sorry. If I really want a turn-based beer and pretzels strategy game with a sci-fi setting, I guess I'll go buy Pandora.
I just watched a Youtube video of the tutorial, and there seems to be a good level of depth here, with supply, logistics, and air superiority all being modeled. I'm almost tempted to take the plunge.
As it is Kerberos there is absolutely no way I'd pay them any money for a pre-order / early access. In fact even if it is a decent game on release I'd still probably hold off entirely or at least until it hit the bargain bucket.
Guess who pre-ordered SOTS2 >:(
In true Kerberos fashion, I found out there is a demo of the Alpha version available for download, but I get all kinds of error messages when I try to unzip it.
They are consistent if nothing else.
I'm totally baffled by Kerberos's decision to turn SOTS in this direction. I think SOTS2 is terrific -- definitely one of my favorite Space 4X. But absolutely nothing could entice me to buy this. It really does look like garbage.
.
Kerberos's last 2 projects were pretty good (SOTS: The Pit, and its expansion Mind Games).
It was only SOTS2 and Zombie Fortress that were released in a terrible state due to mismanagement.
Forget about the prior release issues. This is not a factor for me. I'm looking at Ground Pounders, and to me, it looks like crap. The graphics are uninspired and the mechanics are lackluster. I don't call a game that has all of its "complexity" wrapped up in cards a good thing. These things are core problems with the game that won't be changed during the alpha/beta process.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 15, 2014, 07:41:30 AM
I've been a very strong supporter of Kerberos, but this title looks like garbage. Sorry. If I really want a turn-based beer and pretzels strategy game with a sci-fi setting, I guess I'll go buy Pandora.
Not only that, but they failed to crowd source the funding for Ground Pounders, so I can't imagine what will be produced will be of any quality. SotS:The Pit was pretty fun (if only somewhat flawed), but even it looked better at the outset than this one.
Quote from: Tpek on February 15, 2014, 07:42:00 AM
IMHO, it was Paradox's management of Kerberos that brought the SoTS2 disaster.
SOTS 1 and its expansions were pretty darn good.
I've (like almost always) jumped in on the GP EA program. But I've yet had time to check it out.
In what way did Paradox mismanage it besides not cutting them off sooner? Were they supposed to indefinitely throw money at Kerberos?
Quote from: Tpek on February 15, 2014, 07:42:00 AM
IMHO, it was Paradox's management of Kerberos that brought the SoTS2 disaster.
It may very well be that Paradox contributed to the problem, but Kerberos had already amply demonstrated in the past it needed no help in shooting itself in the foot.
Quote from: Tpek on February 15, 2014, 07:42:00 AM
SOTS 1 and its expansions were pretty darn good.
I've always been under the strong impression that SotS 1 wasn't truly good until at least the first expansion came out, and possibly not even until
Murder of Crows was released. Prior to
Born of Blood, it seemed like practically all I ever heard was how badly Kerberos had mismanaged things, and that they were unsufferably arrogant.
Even allowing for the possibility that the SotS series spawns, ah, intensely divergent opinions ala the Total War games, I still saw so many negative comments, and across so many different gaming websites, that it was obvious Kerberos' practices are apparently considered...controversial, at the very least.
Quote from: vyshka on February 19, 2014, 12:23:11 AM
Quote from: Tpek on February 15, 2014, 07:42:00 AM
IMHO, it was Paradox's management of Kerberos that brought the SoTS2 disaster.
SOTS 1 and its expansions were pretty darn good.
I've (like almost always) jumped in on the GP EA program. But I've yet had time to check it out.
In what way did Paradox mismanage it besides not cutting them off sooner? Were they supposed to indefinitely throw money at Kerberos?
SoTS1 wasn't bad and neither were the first 2 expansions.
Kerberos only started releasing bugged half-baked products when they came under the wing of Paradox, a company with a nice record for releasing such products.
As for how they mismanaged, I obviously don't have the exact details. But it looks quite clearly like a problem of managing the development of the game that was the problem.
Kerberos ended up having to release the game much earlier than anticipated due to the disappearing budget (bad management of the budget).
Not to mention they had staff desertions as well (also a good sign of bad management).
I just saw this came out of Early Access recently, and I am wondering about it. The whole thing reminds me quite a bit of Armageddon Empires - but more scenario focused - and there are so few sci-fi war games available...
I see that a certain FroBodine - which I reckon is a regular poster here wrong forum - is quite active in the Steam forums. And I also see that he's run into a fair bit of trouble playing the game. This particular conversation, though, doesn't seem to bode very well
http://steamcommunity.com/app/267730/discussions/0/41973821166538543/
I have it. I haven't spent a whole lot of time on it since release, but it's.....OK. It was designed for mobile platforms, and the interface shows it (no tooltips, holding and dragging to scroll the map, etc).
There is a bit of a learning curve, but there are a lot of tutorials. It's essentially Panzer General in the SotS universe, but with even more of a boardgame approach. There are also cards and dice that act as buffs, debuffs, and bonuses. I know that some here don't care for that sort of thing, but I don't mind it. If I didn't have so much other stuff to play at the moment, I'd be giving it more time.
It's only $12, I think (early access price was $10), so there's not a whole of risk here.
Quote from: tgb on July 21, 2014, 10:45:28 PM
I have it. I haven't spent a whole lot of time on it since release, but it's.....OK. It was designed for mobile platforms, and the interface shows it (no tooltips, holding and dragging to scroll the map, etc).
There is a bit of a learning curve, but there are a lot of tutorials. It's essentially Panzer General in the SotS universe, but with even more of a boardgame approach. There are also cards and dice that act as buffs, debuffs, and bonuses. I know that some here don't care for that sort of thing, but I don't mind it. If I didn't have so much other stuff to play at the moment, I'd be giving it more time.
It's only $12, I think (early access price was $10), so there's not a whole of risk here.
Thanks for the info O0
It's cheap indeed, but doesn't sound like something I need to try right away.