Hi guys, for anyone with an iPad Air/Mini we've just been made aware there is an issue with the tutorial we missed. For some people it is getting stuck and not allowing you to allocate scientists. We're working on it and will fix it ASAP. It only affects the tutorial so does not happen in the main game. We're really sorry for the problem and will fix it ASAP.
Sorry you are having problems. We have 4 iPad in house for testing but have not added iPad Air or minis to the hardware. Unfortunately the beta testers didn't have any issues either so we thought we were covered. We spend most of our time testing the least powerful oldest hardware as this is what causes the most issues. We have confirmed that there is an issue with the tutorial on iPad Air but have not confirmed the mini issue yet. We're working hard to find out the cause but right now it makes no sense as the issue is repeatable in the tutorial but not the main game. We're really sorry this got missed and are going to get you a fix as soon as we work out what is going on. Life used to be simpler when there was only 1 or 2 iPad models If you skip the tutorial you can play fine, though I know that's not very helpful to new users. Once again apologies to everyone for the mess and we'll get it fixed as soon as we can.
I'm not keen on ipad only games either but come on, when you see those screenshots it'll be near impossible to get it working on a smaller screen
I'm not at all trying to argue so hopefully that comes across, but I'd actually say Slitherine are way at the top of their game as far as iOS games go at least. I can't think of any other developer I'd rather see handle a strategy game on the platform. I'll agree that the games aren't as flashy as other major budget releases but then it's pretty difficult to make the genre "gorgeous" given that it's mostly static images and text boxes half the time. It's obviously entirely down to opinion though, I just feel a nice sense of safety when I buy something from them generally.
Would like to hear impressions on this one. Was super interested, but watched an early access PC build on YouTube and the game seemed to be a series of rather dry menus. I just bought Space Simulator this week, which was awful, and I don't want to get burned twice. I don't know how much it changed since that video I saw.
I really like the idea, but I don’t understand why they use such low-res assets (they are blurry as hell) for a game that seems to be really light on devices, especially on newer ones. I know that their other titles, like Panzer Corps, are also this way, but I find in that case charming somehow (I do like Battle Academy 1 and 2 a lot and bought Hell and didn’t play yet — and all of them look nice enough). In this one, it’s really ugly and the menus/typefaces don’t help at all. I have to note that I have pretty good sight and still have a little trouble reading what’s written on my iPad Mini (2nd gen). Besides that I have 2 criticisms: - The text should reflect the fact that you are playing on a tablet, therefore, no clicks but taps. For example: “click this...” should be “tap this...” - I’ve never felt that a tutorial annoyed me this much. The game is text heavy and when you are trying to read stuff the tutorial keeps interrupting you like you didn’t understand. It’s incredibly annoying. I’ll play it more this weekend, but I feel kind of disappointed.
I agree, actually there games are great not my usually type of turn based so I think my opinion is bias (usually prefer fantasy) especially when I'm comparing it to things like xcom and shadowrun. Thinking about it thought I would much prefer the time spent on gameplay/strategy than some flashy looks!! Slitherine are a company you know your getting more than what you paid for!
I actually loved the graphic look. I just hate the bugs. Posted all over their forum, looks like they tested on a small number of older model ipads only.
Gameplay wise slitherine games are excellent.. So yeah your sacrificing visuals for gameplay with most slitherine titles. I'm perfectly fine with that.. Nothing on ios really compares.. Great online multiplayer support on most of their games also.. Can't wait for legions of steel ##
100% agreed. If you like turn-based strategy, you can't go wrong with Slitherine. The is room for both, as I am enjoying both,.. but if your looking for good presentation play Starships... if your looking for great gameplay with a lot of value... play any Battle Academy, Panzer Corps or even Vietnam 65 (although that depends on your taste for variable tactics). I haven't played this one... but I will. Legions of Steel looks like it will be similar to Rodeo Games Hunters, which is a very good thing.
The discussion about the graphics aside i really would appreciate some opinions about the actual game.
If you want gameplay reviews, this appears to be a direct port of the PC version released on Steam a few monrths ago.
Exactly, gameplay-wise you can find reviews in Google (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Buzz+Aldrin%E2%80%99s+Space+Program+Manager+Review). This is not a new release of an iPad exclusive game. Its much more relevant to discuss things that do affect the quality of enjoyment in the gameplay like the typeface and font size. And sure, graphics are not that important, but what I pointed is not a lack of flashy graphics, is the unexplainable use of incredibly low res images in the main hub that make Baldurs Gate look incredibly defined in comparison.
The game itself is a turn-based space programme management game. It has a campaign mode where you have to race your opposing space agency to reach the moon, as well as a sandbox where you have no set goal. Each turn represent one season of the year. During each season, you receive funding (the level of which gets reviewed every 4 years depending on how much success you are having) and have to decide how many scientists, mission support staff, and astronauts you hire, as well as what training you send them on. You can open space programs (ie putting a satellite into orbit, developing manned capsules, different rockets with different capabilities etc) and assign scientists to research them. Research improves the probability of a component not failing during a mission. When you feel that all components of a mission have a high probability of success, you can launch the mission. Each mission is broken into a number of steps. Depending on the component involved the step may fail. If it fails your mission controllers will try to handle the situation (based on their skills). If the mission succeeds, you get prestige (which affects your funding), the reliability of mission components increases further, and you may (depending on the mission) make a breakthrough which enables other mission types. If the mission fails you get a prestige to your penalty, astronauts involved may die, and the reliability of the components involved may go down significantly. The mission is visualised with a mini-graphic animation of each step. An example of how this works is that I spend 5 seasons researching space planes and have the X-15 ready at 82% reliability. I assign 2 mission controllers and an astronaut to pilot it, and see a successful mission from takeoff to rocket boost to landing approach and landing. After the mission I receive 500 prestige, my astronaut becomes better, and the X-15 is assessed at 88% reliability. I then do a second mission to set a speed record with the X-15. Everything goes fine but after a successful landing approach something goes wrong and the landing itself is a fatal crash. The astronaut dies, I get hit with a -200 prestige penalty, the X-15 is now assessed to be only 75% reliable. The tension comes from getting constant updates on how your competing space agency is performing. If you feel that they are getting ahead of you you have to try to catch up by compromising on on component reliability to just go ahead and get things done. Then you're left watching a nailbiting mission hoping at each step that all works out well. Add to that the tension of long-term missions that span several years, like Saturn Moon imagery. You would get a huge prestige bonus if your rockets gets there, meanwhile you see that your opposing agency is making breakthrough after breakthrough in near-earth orbit research....
I forgot to add that a lot of the strategy comes in based on what to research, and when. For example. Playing as the USA, at the start you might decide that the first rocket you want is one that can cover all your needs for the next 6-7 years. Such a rocket will take over 3 years to research properly, which will give you just about 1 or 2 chances to try and launch a mission before your first funding review. With only a modest amount of success, you will get only a modest amount of funding. On the other hand, with a rocket like that ready it means that in years 4-8 you can focus on payload research and do a varied amount of missions. On the other hand, you could research more basic projects that will let you carry out several different missions in your first 4 years, to get a lot of prestige and thus maximum funding for years 4-8. On the other hand, you will enter years 4-8 with your rocket technology lagging well behind your needs....
Thanks for the descriptions, Skypoint. Makes it much clearer in my head... don't think it's my kind of game even though I love space. Wish listed for now.
