I have a few questions to share with the group.
1) Is GSI actively making changes to the program that processes Middle Earth
turns?
*** They are fixing errors in the code but not modifying the present program.
I'm under the impression that you guys have been using the same
version of software for a few years.
*** Not quite correct but pretty close.
The only changes might be the
automatic reading of turn orders into the main program itself.
*** That's us not GSI. We also did the Bofa Module and have some other plans for future releases. MEmapmaker is in the process of development (and playtest), as is MEOW. The fun one for us is SS turns, AI, and a Constructed set-ups for 1650/2950. I want to get the PR stuff done first and then we can work on these. We use the system of a "fait accompli" to get things done mostly as it's the most efficient method I have found as my experience is that GSI don't want to do any more work on the program.
2) Who is the main voice / contact at GSI?
Bill Feild is the guy to chat to.
3) Does GSI monitor different MEPBM forums such as this for ideas for their
next release?
*** Not that I am aware of.
Do they have a designated channel that lets people discuss
ideas for the next edition?
*** No
I have never understood why some game software
companies have had to refuse hosting a public commentary on their game.
Something about proprietary information, or someone owning an idea /
concept? (such as a new spell??)
*** Not sure - we're happy to chat about the game until the cows come home though.
4) Is there any plans for GSI to release a new edition at a certain time?
*** Not that I am aware of. Originally GSI wanted to pass over the running of the games to DGE so that they could focus on game development. That's the official story. I have not seen any such development.
For example, "they are currently working to release a new edition summer
2003".
*** Not that I am aware of.
···
Thanks,
Kyle
Not possible at present. Same old thing with GSI "don't fix what's not
broken".Clint
>Clint and Company,
>
>I guess the basic question remains, is adding a new spell into the
>mix a possibility? What spell would be added to be debated later.
>
>- Ben