Pocus wrote:That's a pity because I'm rather sure that you can push the current engine to much more details. Plus you would get an up to date engine which run faster.
A thing isn't lost until it's actually lost, mate

Pocus wrote:That's a pity because I'm rather sure that you can push the current engine to much more details. Plus you would get an up to date engine which run faster.
Pocus wrote:That's a pity because I'm rather sure that you can push the current engine to much more details. Plus you would get an up to date engine which run faster.
Jerzul wrote:My late vote is "to be". I hope you get your chance!
charlesonmission wrote:I'm assuming there hasn't been any movement on Civil War III at this point? At this point, does anyone know if the game Grand Tactician would take the desire for people to invest in Civil War III. I guess people do buy multiple Civil War games and I haven't played Grand Tactician, but it seems to have some decent reviews out there.
Pocus wrote:On a personal level, I would like to make a CW3 with the new engine, but you have to convince Slitherine management it is also viable economically.
Pocus wrote:On a personal level, I would like to make a CW3 with the new engine
Butch wrote:While Grand Tactician looks promising, the AI is very lackluster. Athena isn't exactly a genius but at least CW2 has PBEM/hotseat multiplayer; something Grand Tactician will probably never have. That's why we need a CW3. Give us a shiny map with a smoother game engine and we're sold. I would buy it in a heart beat.
Butch wrote:I'm on it. I'd be surprised if a CW3 wasn't in the pipeline or in the (VERY) early phases of development. There's always a market for good ACW games. Even in Australia
pgr wrote:Out of curiosity, how did CW2 do financially (compared to other AGEOD titles?) I'm assuming it was profitable, and one could argue that the market that made it so is still out there.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests