SAS development laggs?

[Stratos]

Hello!

Was playing WCNAW yesterday and after a nice play against the Russian navy in the Yellow Sea, I started to think where are we now and where we will get. And that includes both games WCNAW and SAS, seems that our futures is brilliant with the inclusion of land, mines, smoke etc in WC and with future improvements in SAS, but and don't get me wrong please. Is not SAS lagging a lot behind WCNAW? When it was announced SAS promised a lots of things, like the map creator or WW1 edition ( Yes I know WW1 will be released one day ), and I feel like we are constantly beta testing a unfinished game.
Now with the announcement of the "MIX" with WCNAW a lots of questions assault me:

- If a combat in SAS is near the coast or minefield, will the obstacles appear in WCNAW? And how? as a generic or with the general layout of the coast?

- Will be ships damaged in anterior engagements/air attacks appear as damaged in WCNAW fights? And Viceversa?

- Will SAS anytime soon have a map creator that let us add the harbours we want and name it as we want?

- Will SAS correctly handle other naval eras like WW1 and Pre-Dreadnoguhts?

In my opinion all these features are really far away yet, in both games, that's why I feel SAS is really lagging behind WCNAW and a mix is not viable in the nest future.

Just my two cents and again I repeat, don't want to start a flame war.
Thanks a lot

[JMS]

Hello!

Was playing WCNAW yesterday and after a nice play against the Russian navy in the Yellow Sea, I started to think where are we now and where we will get. And that includes both games WCNAW and SAS, seems that our futures is brilliant with the inclusion of land, mines, smoke etc in WC and with future improvements in SAS, but and don't get me wrong please. Is not SAS lagging a lot behind WCNAW? When it was announced SAS promised a lots of things, like the map creator or WW1 edition ( Yes I know WW1 will be released one day ), and I feel like we are constantly beta testing a unfinished game.
Now with the announcement of the "MIX" with WCNAW a lots of questions assault me:

- If a combat in SAS is near the coast or minefield, will the obstacles appear in WCNAW? And how? as a generic or with the general layout of the coast?

- Will be ships damaged in anterior engagements/air attacks appear as damaged in WCNAW fights? And Viceversa?

- Will SAS anytime soon have a map creator that let us add the harbours we want and name it as we want?

- Will SAS correctly handle other naval eras like WW1 and Pre-Dreadnoguhts?

In my opinion all these features are really far away yet, in both games, that's why I feel SAS is really lagging behind WCNAW and a mix is not viable in the nest future.

Just my two cents and again I repeat, don't want to start a flame war.
Thanks a lot

Amigo, you should have learned by now that speed is not NWS forte (thankfully on the other hand...). Since SAS maps are "scripted" adaptations to NAW should be rather easy: open ocean is a clean map in NAW while those hexes containing land can be mapped. Minefields and accesories should be as easy as plotting the ship's position. Biggest issue I see regards non-historical ships or those not in NAW DB.

I guess we are talking about 2013...

[Stratos]

I feel that "what if" ships should be keep out of the first releases, and that only historical ships should be included. A campaign sistem is very important for a naval game, not all naval campaigns are a "single" battle affair like Jutland or Tsushima

[Warship NWS]

First and foremost.. yes, we do plan on a SAS-WW1 release - when we feel it is ready. WCNAW is a continuously evolving production and when the time is right we will work on the inter-compatibility features for SAS and WCNAW. I will state clearly that WCNAW will not include "custom designed" ships from SAS - only historical or hypotheticals that are included in both engine databases.

Right now we are still winding down from the holiday season chaos and upgrading our operations here at NWS but we will be back at full steam here very shortly.

Thanks.

[JMS]

I feel that "what if" ships should be keep out of the first releases, and that only historical ships should be included. A campaign sistem is very important for a naval game, not all naval campaigns are a "single" battle affair like Jutland or Tsushima

I hartily second that, if in doubt.

[hairog]

I still have the highest of hopes for SAS and believe that the vision that was outlined initially will some day make this the mother of all strategic naval games. A classic in every sense of the word.

But...I do feel that other projects have hurt SAS and it's development. I feel you took your eye off the ball. The newest patch is at least playable. It took way too long from initial release to producing a playable (not perfect) but playable game that people had paid good money for. I understand if there are small problems and glitches that pop up in a project so revolutionary. The show stoppers that have developed in this product are unwarranted and should have been your top priority and it appears that they were not from where I sit.

I fail to understand how you can justify putting resources into other projects when you had a product out there that just didn't work. That was unplayable.

Believe me I understand how unforeseen problems occur. I just spent a large amount of free time developing a series of missions that I made into a campaign for the flight simulator IL2 1946 based on Dick Bong's combat career.

I screwed up and it was unplayable. I'm still working on the fixes right now and have put other projects aside. In my case no money was charged and it is a purely voluntary effort. But I feel an obligation to fix my mistakes. I just don't feel that you have done the same.

This project should have been play tested much better (as should have mine) and when it became obvious that it didn't work as advertised all efforts should have been directed towards fixing it and not towards other projects or even improving this one. It took you much too much time to make this product playable and it may have cost you a window of opportunity.

I urge you to put aside all projects such as the WWI version etc. and make this simulation the best naval simulation ever and a true classic, just like you and I know it can be.

On paper this simulation is incredible and now it is at least playable but it can be so much more. Please continue the good work and make this project all that it can be and in the process this will finally become the holy grail of naval simulations that you set out to produce.

If you come even close to the original vision you will succeed. At this point I would even pay again to get the product you originally advertised and set out to produce. The original vision was so perfect IMHO that you must see it through.

[Warship NWS]

Some direct responses,

a) NONE of our other projects affected the progress of SAS. I am the coder for WCNAW and Tony is the coder for SAS. WM has been acting as support for both projects. Resources were not pulled from one to assist the other.

b) Tony has worked tirelessly to address any critical issues raised, added buckets of new features that were requested, etc. He has been waiting by the way side to see if there is anything else he can work on - within reason - that would help players enjoy SAS even more. We have offered him as much assistance with his work as possible and to help with the "beta" testing we asked players to pitch in and be a part of the process.

c) Part of the purpose for working on the WW1 edition to help fund what is now going into a 8 year project to develop the SAS engine plus he can use much of what is in the works, in terms of new features or improvements, for WW1 for the WW2 edition. Tony even gave up his real job for 2 years to work on SAS-WW2 taking a huge financial personal risk.

d) We have run a full public beta v1.1 thread for weeks to allow for as much feedback as possible to be posted about the latest engine upgrades.. not sure what more we could have done to include the feedback of all players. The thread is still open.. and he has been listening.

Not sure what more I can say.

[Coronel]

I think what hairog is trying to say is that an incredible simulation which appealed to naval wargamers like us was advertised and then released in an unplayable state. The bottom line is that it should never have been released when it was. Many of us are not angry, just disappointed at the state of events with SAS. I for one thought that the teething troubles would have been eradicated long before now, but am confident that they will be. As for the WWI simulation, yes, I will buy that one too... just not at initial release perhaps. Anyways, I hope I don't come across as angry or upset with the NWS team, as I'm not. Like many people have said before, we have a real winner here in SAS and I'm sure it will mature into the simulation that was advertised.

[Warship NWS]

Ok.. here is my final decision as director of our operations,

a) SAS-WW1 is now officially canceled.

b) SAS-WW2 - I have emailed Tony and told him to work on SAS-WW2 and attempt to hopefully address whatever else it is that concerns everyone. We will, as we have always done, support him wherever needed.

c) If there are other concerns about *specific* issues or suggestions then please post them for Tony to read.

Any questions?

[Warship NWS]

Just to clarify, the decision to cancel SAS-WW1 was simple.. if there is not enough support to continue the evolution of the engine then there is no point in publishing a new edition - resources had nothing to do with the decision.

[old_pop2000]

Hmmm! An owner and director of operations making a business decision..... What a novel idea.;) Just kidding, buddy. I venture to say that had that type of decision been made in other, now defunct game manufacturers, they might still be in business.

For what my opinion is worth, you made the right decision.

[Warship NWS]

We are also changing some of our direction here at NWS. More news on this topic to be posted soon.

[Reckall]

Just to clarify, the decision to cancel SAS-WW1 was simple.. if there is not enough support to continue the evolution of the engine then there is no point in publishing a new edition - resources had nothing to do with the decision.

Chris, a simple question: I can see that SAS-WWII needs some more polishing, but the potential is there. Why, then, not just to pospone the WWI version until you are satisfied with the engine?

[Warship NWS]

Chris, a simple question: I can see that SAS-WWII needs some more polishing, but the potential is there. Why, then, not just to pospone the WWI version until you are satisfied with the engine?

It is not up to us, the developers, to be "satisfied" with the engine. It is up to the wargaming community to support the effort.

[Stratos]

ARGH

This was not my intention, I simply want to promove the development pace a bit not to cancel WWI edition. Don't get me wrong I love WW2 one but I will prefer to play the WW1 version better. WW1 is were the real guns are. Now If you cancel it how it sucks? :( As other said we are not angry simply a bit dissapointed, is not SAS doing fine in sales? Is not Tony happy? Man I bought the games you launched, all of them and some of the board ones too. Why this now?
Now I'm really upset :(

And YES I will purchase any version you do of the game, YOU GUYS NEED THE SUPPORT AND I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO GIVE THAT SUPPORT, WCNAW is an amazing game, and SAS is too but can be better, it will be a really bad decision to cancel all further development.

[Warship NWS]

Tony will work on further updates for SAS-WW2 as time allows, he is back to working a full time job now after taking a 2 year break to work on the SAS engine. However, there was nowhere near enough show of positive support to allow for another edition of the engine to be published.

[goodwood]

Tony will work on further updates for SAS-WW2 as time allows, he is back to working a full time job now after taking a 2 year break to work on the SAS engine. However, there was nowhere near enough show of positive support to allow for another edition of the engine to be published.

All due respect to all those that have worked on this project, I thought it would very obvious why there is a lack of support for this project. The last update promised a lot. It did add many features, it didn't fix the aircraft silliness, essential bases in Britain, search issues and ship repair. This game was potentially going to be great, but it falls short of playable due to some realism issues. I purchased this game from day one a year ago and have patiently waited for the game to improve sufficiently enough to enjoy in the long term.

I'm sorry to say I will not be buying another product from this company again, potential doesn't give you your monies worth.

[Warship NWS]

To GW,

I never stated we would stop working on SAS-WW2 Goodwood, however, if you feel that way then email me at nws-online@nws-online.net and I will arrange a refund for your order or store credit for something else. Is there anything else I can do for you?

[Reckall]

I'm sorry to say I will not be buying another product from this company again, potential doesn't give you your monies worth.

Before falling in the usual "One bad experience = the end of the world" nihilism, it is worth noticing how WC-NAW, the FS Improvement Project with Thunder at Sea, and Dreadnought Rising/Battleships Zenith are very good to excellent games I bought from NWS. I see how SAS-WWII was both the most ambitious and the most flawed, but I still like it even in its unpolished state.

Actually, I feel that one problem was overreaching. The basic game should have concentrated on scenediting (no historical campaign for the Med a selling point doesn't make), either realistic or realistic + projected shipbuilding, and a way to reduce operational tempo/unexplicable stunts (US Battleships should not bombard Japan in the first week of war).

And, of course, a little big more effort in the marketing department: some stinkers out there are unjustly enjoying higher visibility.

Anyway, since I'm still itching for an operational game to tie up with NAW, my proposal becomes to create a NAW friendly version of Thunder at Sea, where battles are solved by loading NAW instead of FSP. Of course features ranging from land to minefields should be implemented in NAW, but I would gladly pay both for them and an upgraded TaS.

Please, Chris, consider this option!

[Akmatov]

a) SAS-WW1 is now officially canceled.

I am horrified and deeply disappointed.

[Warship NWS]

To R and A,

There is no one more disappointed then we are about the lack of support for the SAS engine. We had plans for not only a WW1 edition to be published in Q1 2010 but also a WW3 edition by around 2011 using our upcoming set of modern naval rules presently in development. We had plans for several major upgrades for SAS by around Q1-Q2 of this year alone for several key areas of the engine including tactical, AI, upgraded maps, etc. The plans even included bringing on board another dedicated beta tester for the WW1 edition. However, due to the lack of support Tony had to go back to work full time after taking 2 years off to work on SAS 6-12 months ahead of schedule. So, from there we were forced to make a decision regarding the future of the SAS engine.

With present figures Tony ended up averaging ~77 cents per hour for his work on the SAS engine over the past 8 years - 6 years part time, 2 years full time. Had the revenue been even slightly better that could have possibly allowed for at least 6 months more of his personal time and SAS-WW1, and more SAS engine upgrades, would have been feasible to complete on schedule. We already had the research available and ready for the new database and the engine could have easily handled the WW1 time frame with only various minor adjustments. As a note, we pay our developers a higher percentage per unit sale then any other publisher that I know of.. and even at the reduced sale price our NWS operations funding took the hit in revenue, not Tony.

As to TAS - that project will not be revived at this time. It was seriously considered several times but the engine it was coded in is a bit dated and not readily accessible for modern operating systems based on preliminary discussions.

We had also considered a "lite" version of SAS to replace the TAS engine utilizing an operational/tactical only scale without the strategic layer including a scenario editing capability. However, the above lack of support also negated that possibility as it would have taken the same amount of effort required as the WW1 edition.

As to marketing.. we have had previous productions supported - per ratio of resources of development vs revenue - better then SAS with virtually no marketing effort whatsoever. Marketing can be extremely expensive and that would have curtailed even more time available to spend on development for what would have very likely been a far marginal return for the investment - in the end, it would not have been worth the expense. To us, at NWS, it is more important to fund an evolving production with improvements then to spend funding on expensive marketing.

It all boils down to whether or not the wargaming community supports the effort. We tried everything.. public beta testing, writing down mountains of notes based on player feedback, pouring enormous amounts of time into the coding and testing efforts, dedicated research and combat mechanics, etc. We tried to work with players in every way we possibly could.. but it made no difference whatsoever in terms of the end results. In the end our choices were very limited. Support what is already published or attempt to publish new editions -- the first option was the top, and only responsible, priority. The only issue is now that Tony will have to work on the SAS engine on a part time basis using his personal time, which he has already agreed to do and we will of course assist him in any way required.

Those are the facts.. naval wargames are at the bottom of the bottom of the PC wargaming revenue pile and this is the #1 reason why so few completely original designs are published and even fewer survive more then the first or second editions. Major publishers won't even attempt such endeavors as they know they will take serious losses for their investments so only independent publishers will even attempt such productions.

SAS is the only totally dynamic naval campaign simulator to ever be published with top to bottom command and control.. and likely the last to be published anytime in the near future if anyone is watching our test case. It is a HUGE investment risk for likely excessive losses and if all does not go at least near, or totally, perfect, based on the perceptions of the wargaming community, the reputation, and revenue, of the entire company will suffer for it. I do not know of any other wargame publisher that would even attempt what we tried to accomplish and then attempt to build on the engine after the release without charging for major upgrades, enhancements, and/or expansions.

This is where the SAS engine status stands now.. Tony has already agreed to do what he can to keep upgrading the engine based on player feedback and that is all we can ask of him at this time.

Thanks.

[Warship NWS]

<snip>
And YES I will purchase any version you do of the game, YOU GUYS NEED THE SUPPORT AND I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO GIVE THAT SUPPORT, WCNAW is an amazing game, and SAS is too but can be better, it will be a really bad decision to cancel all further development.

Stratos, you have been following our work for a long time now and your support is greatly appreciated. The decisions we have been forced to make have been coming about for a few months now so do not take my posts as personal responses to you. I am simply replying to the thread in general.

Thanks again for your support friend.

[Warship NWS]

I have posted a SAS-WW2 v1.2 feedback thread so we can start compiling notes for the next engine upgrade.

http://forums.navalwarfare.org/showthread.php?t=1705

[Stratos]

I'm very very sad. I always saw SAS as the perfect companion to WCNAW, a game that is amazing ( WCNAW ) but that needs a campaign game to be perfect. And that is SAS. From my point of view SAS would have been easily did in a WW1 timeframe, the lack of aviation would have been perfect for the "All-Guns" navies, simplifying the engine a lot. From my point of view the aviation slowed SAS from the beggining and finally killed it.
The really sad part is that Tony can't continue with this, and this fact is a huge lost for the tiny naval wargaming community.
The other sad part is that without SAS, WCNAW lose his more promising aspect, the campaign/scenario engine. Don't get me wrong, WCNAW is a amazing game, I love it and play it a lot, but from my point of view it really lacks a campaign engine. I will love to play for example a Russo-Japanese war scenario, sending raiders or controlling to blockade fleet. Or maybe trying to force a Jutland playing as the german player in the North Sea? Or a what if in the Pacific in the Plan Orange timeline? ( 20's-30's ). WCNAW also have a great potential creating historical and what if's scenarios being the database so big that sometimes scares me. But now is all lost. Not a single scenario creator will ever appear for it. :( I'm really really sad.

Sorry can't continue, thats a big blow to me. SAS + WCNAW was my "great white hope", and now is lost.

See ya

[Warship NWS]

Hi Stratos.. all is not totaly lost. The future prospects for the SAS engine is, and always has been, based on the support of the wargaming community. With a strong enough sign of support for the SAS engine Tony can apply more time to the SAS engine.

Thanks.

[JMS]

Sorry can't continue, thats a big blow to me. SAS + WCNAW was my "great white hope", and now is lost.



I agree with that feeling, but I wonder how do you measure lack of support?. Is it sales? feedback in forums? - SAS is a very complex simulation, it wasn't helped by interface issues, but still has a lot of unexplored potential. Ideally, it would be Harpon classic WW2 in terms of interface ONLY, but I don't find it unworkable as it is.
I think the WCNAW interface is what's missing at this point, but people must realise that such a complex simulation is not going to be fluid in gameplay precisely because it's complex!

I have been a beta tester for TOAW and the complexity of the engine is such that even today (more than 10 years after it was released) there are unexplored factors.

[paulferris1964]

I don't know too much about the problems with SAS, but if problems remain I can't think of anyone better to get them sorted than this developer.

I'm in the UK and sent Chris an email advising that I couldn't post. He responded by return. Not only that, when I bought NAW a few minutes later my serial code arrived in less than 5 minutes ....and it must be 4am on a Sunday morning in Florida??!!

THAT is what I call great customer service - something that many developers could learn from.

Paul

[Warship NWS]

Hi Paul, to be fair.. I was sitting at my PC when your emails and order came through. I can't be here every minute of every day.. but hey I try. ;)

[tony_glazebrook]

A note to all:

First, let me thank you all for your help, support, ideas and, for those who have bought SAS, the money:)

SAS is my 'baby', and noone feels the pain of the current situation more than me. As Chris has said, it has come down to sheer economics. I have lost quite heavily on SAS (effectively around $250K). The risk has been worth it in every way other than financial; but I need to eat:)

In retrospect, I have been asking myself if I took on too much with this project - the concept, AI, coding (over 200,000 lines of original code), graphics, 600+ page help, yada yada. Probably there is no game out there of the complexity of SAS that has been produced by such a small team. But it sort of developed organically...

I WILL be releasing updates as I can - fixes as well as enhancements. I have no logical stopping point for this process. But I WILL have to churn them out now very much on a part-time basis. I have had to go back to full time work in a job paying over $600 a day. You don't get that sort of money without giving good commitment. So SAS, my first born, will still continue to receive fatherly support but it will have to be on a more limited basis.

I have to say also that as this has been my first published game, I have taken a while to 'toughen up' to some of the criticism. A lot has been very positive and I have always tried to respond quickly to this; but some has just been, well, unfair and unkind I think, and I have wondered at the motivation. I have discovered that there are people who revel in being self-appointed critics, who have never actually produced anything themselves yet who claim expertise. Not many; just a few. I am sorry to say that one of these is a compatriot of mine ( and no, I don't mean you Ron - I have always valued your views)

Regarding the interface issues, sometimes I just scratch my head and wonder. Yes, some screens remain scratchy etc; but the big picture is you have a game that allows you to play - really tactically play - a whole theatre -on an hour by hour basis, over up to a month of real time in a turn. And you can do this in a reasonable amount of time. You can complete an SAS campaign in a week or two, insead of taking as long as the real war! The design challenges in doing that are not to be sneezed at.

SAS is not perfect, and it is less perfect than I would like; but it also has a huge amount of gameplay and is relatively easy to play (IMO).

If sales had been higher - around 3-4 times would have been just enough - I would have chugged on full-time. Simple as that.

SAS WW1 may still happen - (read 'may' in capitals) - depends on time and $$. It's just that we felt it was unfair to promise a timeline when one can't really be given at this time.

At the end of the day, game developers are people, with financial needs and feelings. We are not faceless and we, at NWS at least, are not part of some mega corporate with resources to burn and deep deep pockets. So game development is a chancy business and I would not recommend it to anyone unless their hearts were in it 110% I would have given up long ago and gone back to a 'real' job if it had not been for the fact that I just love the challenge and the creativity and the freedom to design things as you want.

So this is a sort of 'sign off' from me. I will be posting - responding to questions and ideas as always, and posting updates when I can - but it will be on a less frequent basis.

Thanks again to all who have contributed here. I have enjoyed immensely the feeling of starting something that has an international following of sorts; and seeing and sharing in the immense amount of knowledge out there about things naval has been fantastic.

Cheers all

[Stratos]

I'm very sorry to hear that Tony. I bought SAS day 1 and think is a great game, but like all the things can be improved. As you say maybe you were too ambitious, for me the planes killed the game.

Maybe we must create a "foundation" of naval gaming, like a club in order to give funds for next game. Don't get me wrong but what's the price of the other naval game out there? Far higher than the ones of NWS. Should we pay a monthly fee in order to get more games? It will be ok with me, and we should start with a "small scenario" player for WCNAW, something that let you make some different tipes of missions and play them later in WCNAW. Someone here remember the old TF:1942 from Microprose? For me the campaign gameplay was perfect. And yes the game was very easy, but the idea of the campaign was great and I believe it should be simply enough to be implemented in WCNAW. You move resources while try to sink the enemy ones as easy as that.
I feel we should try to create such a program, link it to WCNAW and try how it works, then we can solve it and expand the theatres.

So, for example:

1- 1927: Japan and US fight for Formosa from his bases in Japan and the Philippines, both sides have to bring resources to their troops fighting there while denying this to the enemy, trough raiders, bombard the enemy harbours ( only two are really needed ) and of course intercepting the enemy convoys.

This is simply and idea, but TAS interface was a good starting point.
Man I'm still under shock

[Warship NWS]

Just a quick note, I am tossing a radical idea at Tony and WM in private - if the response is "agreeable" to my idea .. well, it could toss this entire topic into a whole new direction. Stay tuned. ;)

[Stratos]

Will be here!

[Akmatov]

??????????????

[Warship NWS]

Still discussing some options here.. just woke up to, late night. ;)

[Stratos]

I worked

- 12 hours the Saturday
- 12 Today ( Sunday )
- 7 tomorrow

31 hours full of ill babys and kids, old men and women and crying *****/* adults when we extract some blood for analysis...

But I tought about Naval Warfare and feel that we must support them every way we can, so I can relax after work being an admiral in Big Guns era. We must support them for those wonderful games and the passion we share with his authors, so I'm happy to work that hard so I can have some spare pennies to purchase NWS games.

Thanks guys!

[Warship NWS]

Thanks Stratos.. you can never have too many naval combat fanatics. ;)

[old_pop2000]

Thanks Stratos.. you can never have too many naval combat fanatics. ;)

Well, I am always here for research, you know that. I am a fanatic of a different sort.:p

And I am retired. Ha Ha!!;)

[oldspec4]

My short two cents.

I'm basically a groundpounder in military gaming as well as in my past real life.
Therefore. I am not a strong naval game player and do not have the naval knowledge of many of the forum members. I purchased the game at release to compliment/supplement another 5+ year old naval game that was far too complex and time consuming for my taste.

For me, the game has hit the sweet spot for a fun experience, i.e., player options for level of micro management, UI improvements, and the ability to play through a number of
weekly/monthly turns at a sitting.

Although the initial release had some rough spots, IMO Tony and Chris have provided
excellent support to the extent possible w/in the parmeters of the game design. Any
questions/concerns of mine were answered quickly and satisfactorily.

As w/ any game, the SAS concept can be improved upon; and I plan to support any further options to the game.

Mike

[Warship NWS]

Thanks oldspec4.. your support is greatly appreciated. Please tell others about SAS-WW2 so we can try and build up support for the engine. :)

[Scipio]

I thought I'd post a couple of thoughts on SAS, that may or may not be helpful.

First, my condolences to Tony on the direction this has taken. Trying to develop complex software like this on your own is hard, and the feedback in this field is public, immediate and often unforgiving. I can't imagine how disappointing this must be in light of the time and money you've sunk into this. My own experience is that I emailed Tony a bug and there was an update in a day or two, so I think he's been been going the extra mile as a developer.

As to acceptance in the market: First, don't forget that the economy is awful, and this is a luxury good. Second, this project was a little ambitious for one person. Early impressions tend to get passed around on the internet, and while hardcores don't mind being in a public beta for the sake of ultimately getting what they want, more casual customers get scared off.

From my own standpoint, what I really wanted was an update of TAS with a better tactical model than Fighting Steel. I'd like to have a computer version of your boardgames, or of Avalanche Press' Great War at Sea. You have a first rate tactical model in WCNAW, but I find tactical naval games a little sterile without an operational component. The hypothetical aspects of SAS, like building your own fleet, didn't really appeal to me. I can design a short, plausible operational scenario based on sources readily at hand, but how do I figure out how to give production points to Italy or Britain for a small operational scenario?

But when NWS decided to make SAS the strategic/operational replacment for TAS, I bought it to support development of the game because I assumed that sooner or later it would incorporate the ability to make historical, operational scenarios, since you guys seem like serious, historical kind of guys. And once I got SAS, I did find it fun to play around with, though not really what I was looking for originally.

So this is one customer's point of view -- take it as one data point from the market. I think there are naval boardgamers out there who would like a computer version of the operational/tactical boardgames with a decent AI. The unfortunate thing is, I think the AI in SAS is perfectly adequate at this point for this, and it's too bad that it may not get to where I was hoping for in terms of scope and flexibility.

[Stratos]

.. well, it could toss this entire topic into a whole new direction. Stay tuned. ;)

Are we there yet?

[Christian Schwietzke]

Are we there yet?

Kids, if you can´t let daddy do his work without interrupting him, there´ll be no ice cream for you!

[Warship NWS]

Hi guys, we went over a few ideas.. however, it seems best to stick with the present plan. We will continue to update SAS-WW2 as much as possible and it will stay at the $39.99 price mark. As to anything beyond that with the SAS engine time will tell based on community support for the engine.

Thanks.

[GBC]

Perhaps I haven’t well understood the future plans for SAS with the new state of affairs, but now is not more foreseen the possibility to employ WCNAW as a tactical system for SAS-WW2?
Thanks

[Stratos]

Seems that no GBC, please edit font size it hurts my eyes. If I understood it correctly, theres no way we can have a strategical part added to WCNAW.

[Warship NWS]

We do still have plans in place to allow for compatibility between WCNAW and SAS-WW2 - the person holding that up presently at this time is me. I still have a bit of work I want to do with WCNAW before we start working on the inter-compability option plus I want ANY *verifiable* issues that players are supposedly seeing with the SAS engine corrected first. I want to know specifically why the SAS engine is not recieving better community support based on the engine design which is why I started up the thread below,

http://forums.navalwarfare.org//showthread.php?t=1705

Thanks.

[Christian Schwietzke]

As I wrote in that other thread... what I´ve read on SAS on the matrix games forum indicates that people feel it is too difficult to get into.

Edited to add: If that´s all right with, some time in the next weeks (this week and the next are a bit hectic, so no definite date) I´ll create a campaign that is my idea of simple introductory scenario. If Tony likes it and does his magic to add a thing or two the regular campaign editor can´t do, I´ll also write a step-by-step walkthrough for the first turn.

[Warship NWS]

I really do not understand why anyone would think SAS-WW2 is that difficult to get into and have they even tried the latest engine upgrades? The basic concept of the design is not that complicated - you allocate resources, build weapons, delegate missions, and then go fight. I have seen games out there 20X more complicated and with NO AI assistance whatsoever that players grasped just fine. Why are they not posting their questions or concerns here? There is a reason why we have these forums available. Can't exactly help players if the don't ask for help.

CS, if you want to help get players involved with SAS with an intro scenario of your own.. go for it. You know Tony will be more then happy to work with you.

Thanks.