Matrix Game to reissue Reach for the Stars

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Matrix Games has announced that they are going to reissue SSG's Reach
for the Stars game.

The 1980s game was great. Simple interface. Pretty good ai. Played
on both IBM and Amiga.

The 2000 reissue of the game had a bizarre interface. I guess Matrix
is going to try to fix up that version. It's good they are trying but
I am skeptical...

http://www.matrixgames.com/

 

[bill]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Loved the Commodore Version, hated the PC Version, terrible interface. I'd
be interested to see it again if it had a better interface.


"JHawk" <brycej@truman.edu> wrote in message
news:1110068110.859025.13880@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Matrix Games has announced that they are going to reissue SSG's Reach
> for the Stars game.
>
> The 1980s game was great. Simple interface. Pretty good ai. Played
> on both IBM and Amiga.
>
> The 2000 reissue of the game had a bizarre interface. I guess Matrix
> is going to try to fix up that version. It's good they are trying but
> I am skeptical...
>
> http://www.matrixgames.com/
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On 5 Mar 2005 16:15:10 -0800, "JHawk" <brycej@truman.edu> wrote:

>Matrix Games has announced that they are going to reissue SSG's Reach
>for the Stars game.
>
>The 1980s game was great. Simple interface. Pretty good ai. Played
>on both IBM and Amiga.

I devoted several hundred hours to it on my old Apple II.

Glad to hear it's going to be reissued. Hope they don't screw it up
with additional "chrome"

 

[VAMP]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In article <HIidnenrw8-m8rffRVn-ow@giganews.com>, wlambrukos@comcast.net
says...
> Loved the Commodore Version, hated the PC Version, terrible interface. I'd
> be interested to see it again if it had a better interface.


I thought the ui of the second version was excellent. The gameplay I
found very boring. Sort of like rock scissors and paper in space.

Vamp

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In article <u7ok2115l4d35ilusrmphhdk9jcb1fgln1@4ax.com>, lcraver@home.ca
says...
> On 5 Mar 2005 16:15:10 -0800, "JHawk" <brycej@truman.edu> wrote:
>
> >Matrix Games has announced that they are going to reissue SSG's Reach
> >for the Stars game.
> >
> >The 1980s game was great. Simple interface. Pretty good ai. Played
> >on both IBM and Amiga.
>
> I devoted several hundred hours to it on my old Apple II.
>
> Glad to hear it's going to be reissued. Hope they don't screw it up
> with additional "chrome"

I, too, spent hundreds of hours with RftS - first on the C64, later on
the Amiga.

I waited for RftS 2 with bated breath. It was barely out when it had
already disappeared from most shops again (in the case of New Zealand,
before any copies even made it into the distribution system here). I
finally got one sent over from Australia ... and was utterly utterly
disappointed. The game was unplayable, much like MOO3. Even worse, much
of it was fighting against scripted hordes in the 'campaign', an utter
anathema to strategy games as far as I am concerned. Ok, one could look
upon figuring out the weak point in the script as a kind of stratgy, BUT
.... well, not the kind of thing I like to waste my time on. And the
random map games were broken, mostly.

Unfortunately it seems that that lemon is what Matrix Games will be
working with/on.

Quote from their website:
>>>[snip]...to release an updated version of the Reach for the Stars
sci-fi strategy game. The original classic was released in 1983, but the
new release is an updated version of the second Reach for the Stars
release in 2000.[snip] <<< end quote.

Well, maybe they'll give us a demo, but I'll be very wary before I buy I
am afraid.

-Peter

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 08:57:54 -0600, Dweeb <dbohnenberger@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>>>The 1980s game was great. Simple interface. Pretty good ai. Played
>>>on both IBM and Amiga.
>>
>> I devoted several hundred hours to it on my old Apple II.
>>
>> Glad to hear it's going to be reissued. Hope they don't screw it up
>> with additional "chrome"
>
>So what you're saying is, you want the exact same game over again. Why?

Here's a few reasons just off the top of my head:
- excellent AI
- ability to change the cost of ALL items in the game from ships to
research (I frequently made Mark III and Mark IV ships MUCH more
difficult to achieve)
- good paper play aids (I really only used the map)

I don't mind the chrome as such but the ability to diddle with the
costs of all the units was a VERY strong point and made modding it to
your hearts' content easy - which after playing the game several times
radically shifted the strategy and essentially made it a new game.

I'd like to see Mark V and VI ships (at a higher research cost of
course) and if they want to put in different racial characteristics
(like MOO and RFTS2) that's fine - but let players turn these features
on and off like in the original game.

Most importantly - the AI - in the original game it was superb -
there's nothing like having to make the decision to attack with Mark
IIs or wait 10 turns and PRAY you get the Mark III before the other
guy...

Essentially strong AI and the ability to change ALL the costs were
what made that game and anyone trying to 'update' it needs to clearly
keep this in mind.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

there are 8 million stories in the uncanny valley "JHawk"
<brycej@truman.edu> told one of them in news:1110068110.859025.13880
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> Matrix Games has announced that they are going to reissue SSG's Reach
> for the Stars game.
>
> The 1980s game was great. Simple interface. Pretty good ai. Played
> on both IBM and Amiga.
>
> The 2000 reissue of the game had a bizarre interface. I guess Matrix
> is going to try to fix up that version. It's good they are trying but
> I am skeptical...
>
> http://www.matrixgames.com/
>

If it's a new version, fine, but I don't feel like paying for a patched
version of the 2000 game - we should have gotten a new patch a long time
ago for free.

That game was a major disappointment.

--
The Grand Wombat - maker of the 100,000,000th post to Usenet!!
mhm 20x10
meow -- wombats r us

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On 5 Mar 2005 16:15:10 -0800, "JHawk" <brycej@truman.edu> wrote:

>Matrix Games has announced that they are going to reissue SSG's Reach
>for the Stars game.
>
>The 1980s game was great. Simple interface. Pretty good ai. Played
>on both IBM and Amiga.
>
>The 2000 reissue of the game had a bizarre interface. I guess Matrix
>is going to try to fix up that version. It's good they are trying but
>I am skeptical...
>
>http://www.matrixgames.com/
>

It's the 2000 PC version, with some bugs fixed. There's absolutely no
reason for anyone who already has the game to get it again, but,
outside of this newsgroup, there's plenty of people who never heard of
the game, and might enjoy it.
Gregor Whiley
Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
http://www.ssg.com.au

 

[bill]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Wow. a VP from SSG! Way back when your company was my favorite of all the
game companies. Now, just update and release a new PC version Carriers at
War and you'll regain that spot! That was one of the finest games I ever
played, I still have it, but it would need a little updating.

Bill
>
> It's the 2000 PC version, with some bugs fixed. There's absolutely no
> reason for anyone who already has the game to get it again, but,
> outside of this newsgroup, there's plenty of people who never heard of
> the game, and might enjoy it.
> Gregor Whiley
> Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
> http://www.ssg.com.au

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 20:56:36 -0500, "Bill" <wlambrukos@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Wow. a VP from SSG! Way back when your company was my favorite of all the
>game companies. Now, just update and release a new PC version Carriers at
>War and you'll regain that spot! That was one of the finest games I ever
>played, I still have it, but it would need a little updating.
>
>Bill

We would like to do something with Carriers at War too, and we'll
certainly let people know if there's any news on that front.

Gregor
Gregor Whiley
Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
http://www.ssg.com.au

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Hi!
> It's the 2000 PC version, with some bugs fixed. There's absolutely no
> reason for anyone who already has the game to get it again, but,
> outside of this newsgroup, there's plenty of people who never heard of
> the game, and might enjoy it.
Please check game balance for different races. The way the Hive now
plays is unbeatable. It is true they have very weak and expensive
research labs, but they also have short tech tree, and their late-game
tech UPGRADES existent ships. So one doesn't need to constantly build
new designs, but can easily start with mid-tech all-out building,
research better tech, and those older ships are instantly late-game
behemoths.

I'd also suggest incorporating some sort of damage in hulls, so it
would be possible to "wear down" big ships with multi-years attacks
with small ones. The rule "only one ECM/engine/sensor(?) in every
hull" rule makes using smaller hulls comparably more expensive. Also,
small ships die in combat where bigger ones keep firing/killing and
retreat when they got damaged. So the concept of different hulls in
the same battle should give some bonus to smaller hulls, as big ones
now get most advantage.

Well, my 2 cents. IIRC there was more, but it was quite long ago when
I played that game.
BR, Iztok

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In article <422b9483.9132703@news-server.nsw.bigpond.net.au>,
gwhileyXSPAM@ssg.com.au says...
>
> It's the 2000 PC version, with some bugs fixed. There's absolutely no
> reason for anyone who already has the game to get it again, but,
> outside of this newsgroup, there's plenty of people who never heard of
> the game, and might enjoy it.
> Gregor Whiley
> Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
> http://www.ssg.com.au

So will the bugfix become available to those of us who bought the game
already? I just might be willing to give it another try ... as things
stand I feel I paid [you] a lot of money for a coaster. Not that you saw
a lot of that money, most likely.

regds, -Peter

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:41:28 +1300, Peter Huebner <no.one@this.address>
wrote:

>In article <422b9483.9132703@news-server.nsw.bigpond.net.au>,
>gwhileyXSPAM@ssg.com.au says...
>>
>> It's the 2000 PC version, with some bugs fixed. There's absolutely no
>> reason for anyone who already has the game to get it again, but,
>> outside of this newsgroup, there's plenty of people who never heard of
>> the game, and might enjoy it.
>> Gregor Whiley
>> Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
>> http://www.ssg.com.au
>
>So will the bugfix become available to those of us who bought the game
>already? I just might be willing to give it another try ... as things
>stand I feel I paid [you] a lot of money for a coaster. Not that you saw
>a lot of that money, most likely.
>
> regds, -Peter

Re the money, no we didn't see very much of that. We will certainly do
a patch for existing users, but we figure that we should wait a couple
of weeks after the release of the new version, just to see if any
issues, particularly configuration issues, crop up. We don't want to
put existing users to the trouble of getting two patches, and being
honest, we don't think there's too many people from 2000 still playing
the game now who need an immediate patch.

Gregor


Gregor Whiley
Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
http://www.ssg.com.au

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Gregor Whiley" <gwhileyXSPAM@ssg.com.au> wrote in message
news:422d3281.8958750@news-server.nsw.bigpond.net.au...
> Re the money, no we didn't see very much of that. We will certainly do
> a patch for existing users, but we figure that we should wait a couple
> of weeks after the release of the new version, just to see if any
> issues, particularly configuration issues, crop up. We don't want to
> put existing users to the trouble of getting two patches, and being
> honest, we don't think there's too many people from 2000 still playing
> the game now who need an immediate patch.

That's good to hear, and a good plan. I bought this game and never
really got into it, but I will gladly give it another go when you put out
the new patch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In article <422d3281.8958750@news-server.nsw.bigpond.net.au>,
gwhileyXSPAM@ssg.com.au says...
>
> Re the money, no we didn't see very much of that. We will certainly do
> a patch for existing users, but we figure that we should wait a couple
> of weeks after the release of the new version, just to see if any
> issues, particularly configuration issues, crop up. We don't want to
> put existing users to the trouble of getting two patches, and being
> honest, we don't think there's too many people from 2000 still playing
> the game now who need an immediate patch.
>
> Gregor

Gregor,
that certainly sounds very decent of you, and is much
appreciated.

regds, -Peter