Bug: [minor] Updating the missions labels on TFs

[Herode]

Hi gentlemen.

Just received my safe box of WPP this morning and testing my first games. I must say that the demo doesn't give at all a suitable idea of the game. I tried the demo and I was dubious about WPP after that. Frankly speaking, if I had not already pre-ordered the game, I won't have ordered it at all after the demo.

BUT, good news ! I've now got the thing in hands and I'm more than happy with it . No real bug so far, and the game looks very interesting : easy to handle at first glance, intuitive GUI, many options left to the players. Great, and congrats to the devs for their work !

Anyway, that's OT, here I am with my overminor "bug" :

- select a friendly base F with some ships ans at least 1 transport.
- move a transport in a TF_1
- set an Invasion mission for TF_1 on some ennemy base.
- prepare TF_2 in the same Base F and set it to a Raid mission on some ennemy base.
- at this point, in the Base Screen, TF_1 is labelled "Invade xxx" and TF_2 is labelled "Raid yyy".
- Move the SNLF from TF_1 to TF_2
- TF_1 is still labelled "Invade xxx" and TF_2 is still labelled "Raid yyy"

Not a big deal I admit, but it should not be very difficult to update the TFs missions respective labels.

[OTGamer]

Originally Posted by Herode

I tried the demo and I was dubious about WPP after that. Frankly speaking, if I had not already pre-ordered the game, I won't have ordered it at all after the demo.

Thanks for that feedback.

Having only seen the demo, I'm on the fence at the moment...but leaning toward buy. I notice developers in general are often too stingy with demo. Having analyzed these things over many years (and having developed a little software myself), I've determined most developers think of a demo as a "freebie for potential buyers" as opposed to a "Marketing hook for potential buyers". In the former, there is a tendency to hold back or a tendency to develop a product that does not properly reflect the value. Besides, most developers make lousy marketeers. For example, the current demo has a "Bang Ending" (an ending that drops the game interface without allowing the demo player to even evaluate the final turn). That is a big time no-no from a hook marketing approach.

But, I've hijacked your thread....sorry. On the other hand, I think it's useful here as now I know I'm not the only one who feels this way, and giving the developers a look from both sides (one who bought and one who is waiting to buy) should be helpful in the long haul.

Lastly, Parlez-vous français? Je comprend français très peu, mais j'essaie.

[JMHawkins]

Herode,

Thanks, I've logged that bug. Apologies for missing that one.

John Hawkins
KE Studios

PS: sorry for taking so long to reply, we've had some weather issues up here in the Pacific NW.

[Mouse]

I agree with OTGamer on the demo. I think it needs to be a couple of turns longer, and it needs to allow players to evaluate the results after the last turn. I think just disabling the "Go" button after 6 or 7 turns (instead booting them after 4) would be a big improvement. It would give demo players enough time to stabilize their oil as Japan--or lose because they neglected it for too long.

---> Mouse