Uber Weekly Update - August 5, 2014

I think it could be simpler than that.

You get one commander per conquered system. You can move each commander one system at a time. You then station commanders all over the place. Whenever there's a battle you control one of the commanders and each extra commander is a sub commander. If there are no commanders, then the system is conquered without a fight. So then the strategy is based on how many commanders you put on each system. Do you put all of them on the front lines? or do you hold some back incase you lose a battle on the front lines? If a sub commander dies in battle, then you lose that commander.

I'm not an expert player but my impression is that additional commanders would be a small bonus in the early game that would be outweighed by being a significant liability in the late game. Under such a model, it doesn't seem beneficial to ever commit more than one commander.

I would hardly call being able to capture twice the territory at once a small bonus.

Galactic War...... War of the Ring from BFME II....GALACTIC CONQUEST BATTLE FRONT 1 & 2

Have you played the Galactic War? Having Sub Commanders fighting alongside you is very helpful.

One might even say... Too helpful.

Yupp.

A lot of people have said that.

I have but not enough round to have received a sub-commander.

I dunno; paring it down to commanders / sub-commanders only feels too barebones. Retaining a resource aspect, as GW does now with technologies, adds some needed depth.

I'm not suggesting removing the technologies.

Some really nice stuff like pathfinding and server browser fixes you've listed as being on the radar. Looking forward to it.

I hope we also get ui bug fixes and improvements. Not just aesthetic polish like descriptions, but functional polish.

Food for fans...

That's how it's done !

Just replace the word 'birds' with 'fans' in the following...

I hope that those naval path finding fixes are amazing, I just made a map that was supposed to be pretty much just naval, and I had ships zigzagging (almost on the spot) to avoid nothing, quite frustrating!

Are we gonna get a tour vid of the new office? Seeing all forest's tweets about how awesome the view and how tall it is, such a teaser.

Hey brad, That's really good news. I do appreciate all the stuff achieved since the beginning of alpha, and i understand that at some point there are higher priorites, especially for such a "AAA" game. Yes i call PA a "AAA" when i see all the techs used in it. I know you've allready stated that we will never have the proof of concept planets quality in the real game. A few things i would like to know : is this is related to the complexity of procedural generation or just because the team could not afford to dedicate too much time to this procedural stuff because of higher other priorities ? If there's some kind of "in progress" stuff with planets, any chance to have previews ? Many of us made the assumption that the new pathfinding using voxel technics would help to handle more complex terrains. Do you confirm ? From a tech perspective, is it possible to code a planet editor that would use the procedural stuff as an intial fundation, then let the end user play with brushes to change the planets ? Would this be compatible with the current game implementation ?

Otherwise, a big big thank to the team, just because the current game has just gone beyhone my expectations. PA is obiously a very very challenging project, and i strongly doubt lots of other team could have done what you've done.