Gold Status !

[prindal]

I have read that the game should reach gold status - end july. Is it on track ?

Reg.

Prindal

[reimero]

Based on what I know, the engine is complete and Tim is getting the scenarios put together for testing. Shouldn't be long now.

[Sean Murphy]

Hey! Don't tease us by putting an exclamation point on your subject!

Tim & crew - any chance of an update? possible dates? Ya got my money... so any news would be welcome.

[Joe 98]

The engine was complete in 1998 - in 101st Airborne

82nd Airborne, has tweaked the game and added a whole new series of scenarios.

The scenarios have so far taken 3 years. July 2004 is a realistic date.

As they are becoming a board game company, maybe they could sell it to a computer game company to finish.

[ August 01, 2003, 00:02: Message edited by: Joe 98 ]

[Richard]

It has nothing to do with us becoming a board game company. We're a small company and the scenarios take a lot of work and we have one person who can do them, which is Tim. He is also trying to do the work to keep the company in business so we can finish the scenarios. I know he has put some work into them recently, and as soon as he can find some free time he will get them done.

Trust me this is something he wants to get done badly. But the business of keeping us in business comes first, otherwise the game will never get done.

[Sean Murphy]

Hey Joe98 -

To quote Oddball in Kelly's Heroes: "Always with the negative waves. Why can't you relax and dig the beautiful scenery?"

[Joe 98]

Oddball is my favourite movie character of all time.

I tried 101st Airborne about 2 years after release – when it was in the AUD20 bargains bin.

For 6 years I was a keen player of Close Combat and found 101st Airborne very very slow.

In the meantime my life changed and I find I have little time for continuos time games and I started playing turn based games PBEM.

The advantages of both genre have been debated vigorously within the wargaming community. But in reality, infantry combat is a mixture of “continuos time” and “turn based” action.

And the one genre missing is where you control a single squad in a series of missions. Then I read about 82nd Airborne and the improvements over the original game. Yes, this could be the missing link.

82nd was announced in late 1999 set for release in June 2000. Since then I have bought – at full price:

Close Combat 4 by Atomic
Close Combat 5 by Atomic (played both Online – fantastic)

The Ardennes Offensive (“TAO”) by SSG - a free download and a great game. Played it by PBEM)

Uncommon Valour by 2 by 3 – a fantastic strategic level wargame. Best played PBEM

Soon Korsun Pocket by SSG – the sequel to TAO

Soon Battlefields! by Matrix- a replacement for TAOW and for the old World at War series by Atomic

Soon Combat Leader by Matrix – probably a great game but would be better at the squad level of 82nd Airborne.

Soon Airborne Assault by Panther Games. A terrific continuos time game set at the operational level.

So, since the announcement of 82nd Airborne I have bought 4 fantastic wargames and will soon buy another 4. Certainly before June of 2004

I have pushed to get away from board games and instead use computers to make better wargames. Each of the games listed above has at least one great innovation in that direction.

Unfortunately 82nd Airborne uses 1998 technology/ ways of doing stuff – and so in another thread I came up with the word “obsolete”.

This game could have been great, but unfortunately the wargaming community is small and Shrapnel cannot afford to develop it. That’s why science fiction, fantasy and now baseball get such a run.

[Richard]

Actually the only reasons those other games get a run are because they are developed by other developers, not us. We publish plenty of wargames with a large amount of innovation. In fact except for the Airborne Assault game all of the games you listed are made using technology that is older than 101.

With the current state of the wargame market 82nd will not be out of date when it comes out.