Jul

Warfare 1944 - Post Mortem

Posted by: Con in Game Design, News, Rant, Warfare

So the game has been out for just over a week now. It’s getting good press and the reviews on Armor Games have been good if not all too often incoherent.

I have to admit, I loathe the first few days after a release. I’m generally exhausted having been up until 5am a few nights in the week prior, only to be confronted with thousands of people filling my comments pages with bugs and ‘glitches’ (I hate that word). Then follows the week of fixing, more late nights, the constant urge to keep checking the score, plays, comments.

As it stands though, the rating is 9.2 and it’s had over 1 million plays during this first week, but it’s raised a few concerns about the future. Why? Well there’s a few reasons…

Expectation.
It’s a curse. A lot of initial reactions were that the first game was better, too many bugs, didn’t live up to what was shown off. I’m not really sure how to handle expectation at the moment, especially with a third Last Stand game on the horizon. In Warfare’s case I think that it had a bit of an impact because it was only a sidestep from the original, so the two were comparable but not identical.

Complexity.
Really, Warfare 1944 is pretty basic as far as Real Time Strategy goes, but it seems it went waaaaay over the heads of a lot of people. I’ll admit there is a fair chunk of assumed knowledge in there, short of delaying the play of someone for 10 minutes while you explain it all, I’m not sure how much more I could have laid it out.

On top of that, the game does force you to actually play it though, unlike 1917 and it’s passive sit back and spam away tactics. It’s more challenging and makes you think, unlike 1917 where you didn’t have to consider resources or micromanage units. As far as I can tell from the polar nature of internet comments, some enjoyed it, some hated / were confused by it.

What I’ve learned.
I need to address all of my audience and cater to them. Some of them are a hell of a lot younger than I had counted on. I think I can safely say that a majority of my future games will have difficulty settings, different play modes and other functionality to broaden the play opportunities for everyone.

- Con

Add Comment

145 comments so far

Singid25

Over 80 % of people expect game sequels to be better than the previous/first. It is the worst curse to creators and programmers. For all people who think otherwise, YOUR WRONG!!

July 8th, 2009 at 5:14 pm

THe drizzle

Dont feel bad, this is a great game that actually required effort and strategy unlike 99 percent of other games on teh web, this was better than 1917, better graphics, more relistic, and the bazooka guys are just badass. Dont get discouraged, it has a 9.2 rating for a reason.
-Your fan
The Drizzle

It’s not so much about being discouraged, more being concerned that I have to dumb things down too much to please the audience.
- Con

July 8th, 2009 at 5:58 pm

aaronsayys

I’ve played all of your games and I think the instruction movie in the beginning was pretty straight forward, don’t see how people thought it was complicated.

If you’re planning to, I’m looking foward to warfare 1959.

July 8th, 2009 at 6:15 pm

Slappythehobo

you shouldnt feel discouraged because warfare:1944 is one of the best games on the web and the best real-time strategy game that i`ve seen so far. great graphics, great gameplay, great sound effects, and overall great game. you shouldnt dumb things down for a few ranters just let us know how the games are going and update us or whatever in your own words.

July 8th, 2009 at 6:22 pm

kevin

I think that a majority of people don’t fully appreciate what it takes to create an awesome, functional game. And i dont think that you should have to dumb things down, just keep doing what you’ve been doing

July 8th, 2009 at 6:33 pm

dannyb07

i think this leaves you plenty of time to start working on last stand 3.

July 8th, 2009 at 6:36 pm

jake

I’m amazed you made a sequel, as few demonstrate the patience to make a game to follow to first one. And the game is still good.
PS are you still going make any improvements, or versions, to the game? like more than one unit behind cover, or something?

July 8th, 2009 at 6:47 pm

zx445

i get what your saying about the dumb things down part on an essay i wrote in about 4 hours my teach said it was too confusing but was an A+ when i decided to dumb it down well i didnt get a very good grade -_-. But majority of people who think the game is incredible wont say so they will rate it and think it but not say it. The game was awesome made me step up from random spamming like in 1917 random spamming wasnt much fun. And i think its great you used an oppertunity like this to learn something thatll make you a great programmer for larger scale things such as next gen systems. hope ya the best of luck and keep making awesome games .

July 8th, 2009 at 7:49 pm

ewet8

alright ive read the comments and the entry to your blog and I’ve got a few things to say.

1. when i first played 1944, I watched the video and it told me pretty much everything i needed to know,(which by the way was a sweet intro, instead of just a layout of buttons.) and if you need more of an explanation, then internet gaming is not for you.

2. It was a great game, I had some of my friends play this game and love it at the intro vid.

3. I’m fourteen and i showed the game to 10 year old brother and he got in one game as well.

4. I hate the word “glithches” as well.

Lastly I only have one game suggestion, (I know its annoying to get ideas from here you already have alot of them but,) why not make a defencive version only but in the middle ages, swordsmen archers crossbowmen, pikemen you know that whole thing.

so in conlusion I’m saying this:
great work on warfare and good luck in future endeavours.

-ewet8(colin)

Cheers mate, good to hear that both you and your younger brother “got” the game.
- Con

July 8th, 2009 at 8:42 pm

the jackal

hey con,, well u did well with the 1944 , but to saythe truth it wasnt exactly is i expected ,, its not bkz it was bad or anything ,, part of it bkz of the waitingg i guess lololo,, see ,, put it that way ,, everybody likes a challenge , but also to be in a control , its a game , thats why everybody plays . in 1917 its was simple with a realll good kickkkk ,, 1944 ,i dont know it was a bit borning , but it was worth a play but not the wait man. last stand is spactullar , bkz of the challenge and the control the player has … above everything ,,, u rockkkkkkk . no question there ,,, thank uuu

Thanks, I think. Can I get a translator who speaks Generation Z in here?
- Con

July 8th, 2009 at 11:02 pm

Yak38

Alright, first up I’m sure you’ve heard it before but it is a very fine game. As an 18 year old I found it highly enjoyable in a Battlefield 1942 meets Close Combat sort of way, not as complex as you say but far more then I would generally expect from a flash game.

The graphics were as per usual top notch, and this is one of the main things that draws me to your games. They show that flash games don’t have to look like childish. However, I feel one of the main reasons some people may considered Warfare 1917 a better game than this is purely the setting. I mean World War One was the War to End All Wars and the first truly global and modern conflict ushering in the use of chemical, mechanized and air warfare, yet it’s overlooked as two boring because it also involved much trench warfare. (And what’s wrong with that anyway?)

But I have been back many times to play Warfare 1917 again and again because its awesome and yet it’s one only World War One game out there, by far the most recent. Now the gaming industry has in my opinion neglected the First World War in favour of the Second World War. In particular focusing on the American Campaigns in Western Front, and therein lies the problem as I see it for Warfare 1944.

It suffers in a market is a wash with Second World War games of which it cannot compare and have perhaps in the players already been done. However, I understand how hard it would be to create a World War Two game without including a D-Day landing. More to the point I felt Warfare 1917 was better not because of its game play was better than Warfare 1944 (because it wasn’t) but because of the uniqueness of the First World War.

In any case that’s probably says more about my angry at the gaming industry for ignoring World War One that anything else but jolly fine work and I wish you all the best on your future projects. I shall eagerly a wait them.

Yeah, the oversaturation of WW2 games was something I was concerned about. The originality and vast lack of games let alone current popular media was one of the things that I enjoyed about doing 1917. Anyway, it was an inevitable and much requested sequel. The next one will be somewhat different.

- Con

July 9th, 2009 at 2:58 am

DavZRM

All in all, it was great. Keep up the good work.

July 9th, 2009 at 3:56 am

Prae

Hey Con, Long time player first time commenter.

If you dumb down your games, then whats the point of making them?
Warfare 1944 is one of the few games out there that is entertaining and challenging, and quite frankly, for those people who can’t get the game by reading the instructions… Well they can go fuck themselves.

All in all, Great work on everything, and keep it up!

Oh by the way… 1944 is definitely a lot better than 1917, and 1917 was a awesome game, and anyone else who thinks otherwise Con should hit with a fish

I’m not sure hitting people with fish is the answer.
- Con

July 9th, 2009 at 4:36 am

Tarkan

stupid kids! I love 1944 =) These kids hates the game if they lose.. This means that they’re something like 7 years old!

They complain about bugs cuz they don’t have anything else to complain about!

I think that this was best warfare! I had to use my brains man! =)

July 9th, 2009 at 4:37 am

Valhelm

Oh, con… I feel your pain. Some people that play your games were probably expecting a ’strategy’ game where you just send your best troops up against their best troops. What they got was an awesome and fun game that does require real strategy, and is definitley your best work yet. Con, I think you should appoint Mods to delete any posts like ‘OMFG u suk con the game makes no sense how u get resorces???????’. I vote for Ash and Benihana to be mods.

I like how you turned that into a mod election pitch.
- Con

July 9th, 2009 at 4:50 am

puddinp

Con–Warfare 1994 is EASILY your best game to date. F-ing awesome, and the flanking system is a great touch. 1 unit behind cover seems the best way to go–I mean how possible would it be for 15 soldiers to hide behind a couple of empty oil drums? Thank You for the Last Stand and Warfare series; really everyone posting should just be thanking you and offering to buy you a pint or 3.

MESSAGE TO the H8ers: Before griping on this game please program a better game than this and submit it to Armorgames for us to all play and rate thanks

July 9th, 2009 at 5:53 am

Dash141

Con - Great work on 1944; I have played the game so many times now, I think I’ve lost count. That’s telling you something there*

Don’t lose faith by the detractors and bitching little kids; each and every single one of us has a critic in one way or another, but I reckon for every critic you have, you also about about 20 fans.

So keep up the great work, and I look forward to playing more!

* Yes, that I have no life, but that you also created an amazing game.

July 9th, 2009 at 6:31 am

Soakerman

good game for the next one for doing Vietnam or medieval times or whatever make terrain like hills or rivers or stuff it would make the game more interesting and take some more strategy

July 9th, 2009 at 8:13 am

Dave

Quite honestly I like the new one much better i think it was a HUGE success.

July 9th, 2009 at 8:29 am

Aaron

i like warfare 1944 its seems great but too bad i cant play it right ,i played the first level for like 30-40 minutes beacuse it lags for me(Damn my internet and computer)
cant wait Until The Last Stand 3 comes out
Any way keep up the good work

July 9th, 2009 at 9:30 am

kielzanie

I really dont get it. the difficulty made the game wayy better cuz i was there infront of my screen for how long just tryn to beat the german campaign. Thats fun to me!!!

Well, for the kids, i too have a really young brother who cant play games too well. He played it on the difficulty level easy, and beat the whole campaign.

If people actually play through the campaign and start to get into it, then they will relize that it is a completely strategic and fun game. I guess the bugs hurt the rating and the fact that u cant put (atleast) 2 squads in 1 wall of cover (which im upset about too).

My opinion, d day could have been more intense ( you having more resource points or more cover) so the player can have a devastating thrill from the beginning of the game. Also, it would have been cool if the beach was longer and the boats show up too. Therefore, those “X’s” on the shore could be used as cover too and then the soldiers would go into a full charge, like in omaha beach. But again, it was still as cool as it was and im not the one to tell u how to do ur games. Just suggesting

But the tanks and the mission objectives were phenominal. Really, great job. thats really cool that u can actually admit your mistakes too instead of denying it.

One really important question tho, like u have said in 1 of your other posts, u said 1944 was the last warfare game. Is that still true, im dying to know!

July 9th, 2009 at 10:23 am

Singid25

before I forget, when will you post warfare 1944 in the warefare tab on the main page? If you’re waiting for the final copy then I understand…

July 9th, 2009 at 11:48 am

Shroutebeer

I think the game was great. It lived up to all of my expectations; I mean, I didn’t think it would be something that would blow every other game I’ve ever played out of the water, but something that would be in depth enough that I could play it a few times and still have fun. That’s what it did, and it did it very well. If only more game makers focused on the gameplay as more integral to the game being fun. The quality of your games are in a league with very few others.

I know what it’s like for people to expect a lot of you when you’re making a sequel to anything, and that does get very hard to deliver a new experience that is equal to what the last was without repeating yourself too much. That’s the reason I don’t make many sequels. Yes, it was fun, but sometimes it’s just as good, or even better, to move onto something els.

July 9th, 2009 at 12:49 pm

AC/DC

I think the best way to try and stop over expectation of people, is to only tell us little bits about what it is going to be like. To NEVER give a realease date. (that way you can test for bugs as long as you want and not have to stay up to 5am. unless you feel like you have to, in which case take a deep breath and go to bed as you will be able to think better when you wake up.)

The complexity is a tough one, I’m 13 and I found that it wasn’t too complex. (But this is coming from a kid who use to enter primary school chess competions.)

As for catering for all of your audeince I have a solution. (however I think it would probably be too hard to bother trying.) If you release say 2 games at once, E.g that catapult one and LS2. then all of your audience should have something to enjoy. However that is probably to much effort and you’ll be better of just doing what you do now and people can get over it. After all if you go into EB games and pick up a random game, the game won’t suit everyone who shops at EB. Thats because every game should have a target audeince and here is no reason why yours need to be different.

July 9th, 2009 at 2:01 pm

Nate

I’ve played all your games and i have to say they’re very good. i actually didn’t think that flash games could look this good. and i like 1944 because it complements the warfare series to me. i mean 1917 was fun and rather simple, but 1944 kept me looking all over the map thinking about what i was going to do next. i thoroughly enjoy both.

and about the catering to your audience part, i would not want to see that because when you start to do that i think you may be surprised how much you have to take away from the game and you may still get people who are like “i don’t getz teh game it makes my brainz hurt” or “this game sukz i wicked hate you”

so forget about the negative crap from like little kids who don’t even know how there ass from a stick in the ground and continue making games that impress us and challenge us

Note: i let my 10 year old cousin play 1917 and he loved it and beat it (without losing once) but i let his 7 year old brother play and he hated it and thought it was boring …

July 9th, 2009 at 2:23 pm

Fatts

I am a veteran gamer having played the whole gamut of games from text-adventure games (Zork anyone?) to real-time strategy games (Dune 2 anyone?) to 3D shooters (Doom? Rise of the Triad? :P). The mechanics of your games are simple for casual gamers, but also possess subtle complexity for hardcore gamers that keep ‘em coming back, a trait that is refreshing for Flash-based games. While I think it’s great that you feel that you should satisfy the masses with varying difficulties, modes of play, etc., and I am all for those aspects, it’s important to remember that you can’t satisfy all the people, all the time. I think you have shown that you have extremely high standards of quality when developing on your own and I think that so long as you adhere to your own internal high standards, the games will continue to be great. After all, if the majority of your audience is comprised of idiots, do you really want to satisfy and enable their every idiotic impulse? Keep up the great work!

July 9th, 2009 at 2:24 pm

Zepode

It was a solid game, Con.

To the detractors… screw ‘em. Make the game you want to make. If you do that, I think you’ll find that it makes the game that much better. Things have a tendency to fall into place when you do that.

You’ll drive yourself crazy if you care to much about what other people want, trust me.

But yeah, 1944 blows 1917 out of the water. It’s a better game in every way.

Keep on keepin’ on, damn the 10 year-olds who can’t understand a game.

July 9th, 2009 at 3:12 pm

Adamant80

Sorry that people can be such jerks. In Last Stand 3 (your next project) the ability to turn of the blood and gore would be appreciated. I just cant play the Nazi part of the game- killing the boys who fought for freedom.

July 9th, 2009 at 4:38 pm

Adamant80

Your doing just fine dont put so much pressure on your self. I have never encountered a glitch and have nothing to complain about. people put pressure on you just because they can-I’ve seen the same thing in the Call Of Duty Forums.The games fine, and people just have to learn they cant have everything their way all the time.

July 9th, 2009 at 4:44 pm

Xenostalker

Hey I do mapping on Warcraft 3 and there is a same feeling to it. You just have to realize that most of your audience is probably within the age realm of 10 to 14 and some even younger. If you even look at the armorgames.com forums you will see this. I think 1944 was an excellent sequel and even exceeded all the hype. If people can’t deal with the micromanagement of units and are looking for a lazy RTS flash game - they can play Warfare 1917. Mastermind World Conqueror is way more complex than 1944 yet it gets good reviews. It’s all about the players! 1944 is great - ignore anyone who says otherwise. Bugs and glitches are apart of creating a good game - they are inevitable.

July 9th, 2009 at 5:58 pm

Black Dog

Don’t em get you down, Con , You still make great games.

July 9th, 2009 at 9:00 pm

Slappythehobo

you shouldnt feel stressed or sad or regret anything con. You`ve done a great job keeping us informed on the best games on the net. Even though there are some critics they go onto your website for a reason: BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL FANS!!! but still dont let a few loud people over shadow the majority of people who absolutely love your game

July 9th, 2009 at 10:59 pm

Warlord_126 (Transitioning to Ninjat)

Don’t give up! Everyone expecting a SpamWarfare game was WRONG! Do what you think is great, someone else will agree with you.

Don’t care about the others.

July 9th, 2009 at 11:24 pm

dude 1944 was awesome i loved it it was alot better than the first keep up the good work and can u give us some news on the last stand 3 we’ve all been waiting and waiting it would be much appreciated

July 10th, 2009 at 2:10 am

The game was really good. I enjoyed it thoroughly. The only problem I had with it was that the German campaign felt kind of ‘tacked on’. I think it would have been better if you had changed the ending. If you were going to have the same map and levels as the allies, just reversed, then you should have just left the paper alone. Still it is a great way to spend an hour and a half ^_^.

–TJ

July 10th, 2009 at 4:22 am

Travis

Con, the game was very very very very very cool. Very realistic, very well thought out, not too complicated, and very interesting. The game was very realistic, the AI was a way lot better than Warfare 1917, and the main line and 2 flanks system was very nicely done. The game was very well thought, unlike many other games, you actually took a lot of time to think it out and design the game. The game was not too complicated, the instruction movie was very straight forward and not much thinking was needed in combat. The game was tons of fun, best game on the web probably. Don’t let those negative people get you down, they just had another thing in mind, or are just annoying the heck out of you.

July 10th, 2009 at 8:40 am

Ash

A lot of people that play online games are actually teenagers. Because when they are in school they always click on the tab with their game on when the teacher is not looking ^^

Thing is, ya you have a lot of expectations, but it has good aspects as well. If you appeal to your audience a bit more and appeal to their wants and needs, just think about that ratings you could get!

July 10th, 2009 at 10:23 am

NGgamer

That’s why you test the game before submitting it.

Oh of course. Because playing it about 3 times a day for 3 months isn’t testing it. But yeah, things still get missed. The problem is gathering a large group of capable, literate and experienced people who can provide good feedback.

- Con

July 10th, 2009 at 4:01 pm

Gizmo

I think the main issue is that the expectations for a simple (yet not that simple) Flash game were, for many people, way too high. You created some kind of buzz that people really reacted to - en maybe that’s a reason you had bad and good comments/reviews.

That’s one thing. But seriously, do you really believe that the game was “too hard”, or “too complex” to handle ? Really ? 1944 is a bit more complicated than 1917, but it’s still “create units, order to move, yay I won”. I’m not saying it’s not a good scheme - far from it, I find it very enjoyable, but it’s everything but complex… There is subtilities of course, that someone who masters the game can discover (right use of the upgrades, combinations of troops that are gonna be effective, special techniques and strategies, taking more avantage of the mico (grenades etc) and that what makes this game kinda different from the rest of the current “flash games” production, and what make it, well, “cool”.

Don’t beat yourself up : if you hear so many comments about bugs, it’s because you have an open ear. Almost every flash game has his lot of bugs and errors - but the creators often don’t really give the players the opportunity to speak theirs minds. Either you’re ready to hear - and hardly work on - the problems in your game, either you’re not, and you don’t open that kind of blog/subject.

You’re probably over reacting.

It’s like post sex sadness

See you around,

the holy g

July 11th, 2009 at 12:27 pm

David

Con, I would love to see Warfare: 1969 in the Jungles of Vietnam, I love the new system of 1944, I think (no offense) that it’s better than 1917 because it makes my mind work harder I don’t want to easy… (And besides in 1917 you’re scared to enable tanks for fear that you’ll be ran over”

But as I said a Warfare: 1969 Vietnam would be awesome, or even Warfare: 1953 Korea, but i think the most awesome of all would be WARFARE: 2007 IRAQ aw man!!!

July 11th, 2009 at 3:28 pm

adam

con don’t worry about the next warfare or gliches or bugs just worry about your next game that is why you learn from your mistakes and the only thing that matter is the future not the past and don’t let small little things get you - yours adam

July 11th, 2009 at 7:38 pm

Liam

Dear Con, whoever complained about these games is a fool. All of your games have been of a brilliant quality ( with the exception of Sin Mark for me, not too keen on it for some reason) and have obviously had a lot of time and hardwork put into them. Warfare 1944 was a natural sequel and is what I think a good evolution onto the gameplay. I hope Last Stand 3 is just as good

July 11th, 2009 at 11:45 pm

Jordan

Despite many peoples attempt to show just how fun WWII really was your game was quite original in some aspects. It is different than most in that you see the war not from the view of a single (often indestructible) main character, but you see the men as squads of real people and you feel their deaths.

Kind of like what a general would see.

Your style of gaming is very unique con, do not be swayed by nay-sayers. Keep up the excellent work.

July 12th, 2009 at 1:29 pm

Ste

It’s good.

You say you feel you should cater to your audience but this got 9.2 from that audience. Which is fucking good.

July 12th, 2009 at 6:01 pm

Nate

dude, you need to take like 2 weeks
(or more) off from any of your game.

July 13th, 2009 at 8:53 am

ChemicalReaper

I disagree that you need to “dumb” things down to please your audience. I hate to quote philosophers, but as David Thoreau once said; “Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity!”

One of the reasons that Warfare: 1917 was such a huge success was simply because it WAS so easy to play.

You could load up the game and pretty quickly figure out how to play.

It’s not a matter of “it’s too difficult,” more a case of “I don’t want to think.”

WF:1917 was brilliant. It was simple, maybe even simpler than other flash games. But it was a new concept, it was (and still is) one of the few WWI games on the internet, and it was an incredibly simple concept.

You know GTA, the Saint’s Row series, Need For Speed, etc.? They have a formula. Every game they come out with is essentially the same thing, just with glitzier graphics, different characters, and different level titles.

I didn’t enjoy WF1944 as much as 1917, I’ll be honest and truthful. Sorry.

It’s not because I was ‘lazy,’ or couldn’t be bothered to learn how to play, or didn’t understand how it worked.

I just didn’t find the gameplay as fun as the original one. You added too much at one time, the game didn’t feel quite as polished as it could have been… maybe it was slightly rushed out of anticipation, or you were sick of people asking “when’s it gonna be done!?!?!” I don’t know, I don’t have the answer to everything.

If you decide to continue the Warfare series, maybe you’ll make it a bit simpler again? One flank was fun… three was a bit much. Six units were fun, eight were unnecessary (the mortar dude and officer were pretty much useless).

Having said that, I’d like to maybe see a revamped version of WF1917. Maybe newer graphics, a larger battlefield, two flanks instead of one (two squads, per flank, per trench for a total of four squads per trench rather than three), and artillery must be called in by an officer?

Although I will admit that I was a little disappointed with Warfare 1944, I’m still a fan of your work, and I’m really looking forward to Last Stand 3!

“Simple. Easy to play. Don’t want to think.” What I was going for with 1944 was something that wasn’t all these things. I didn’t want another 1917, I wanted something deeper for people who could be bothered learning the new details.

What I’m saying I’ve learned is that I need to create games that cater to those who want to play no-brain web games and those who want some depth. The next Last Stand will provide that.

- Con

July 13th, 2009 at 1:36 pm

Lapinnoir

don’t let this slow you down con. you work hard to develop appealing fun games and you succeed in that. By what i have read you have targeted some great things to work on and if you can bring that same energy and attention to detail to these new concepts you work will only get better . games have evolved so fast that many developers try to include everything aspect of good games, this usually leads to games coming out under baked or unbalanced. so apply these new idea sparingly and with skill and your games will continue to grow and shine. good work with 1944 it definitely brought more depth to the warfare series.

July 13th, 2009 at 11:05 pm

Hz_B

Agree!
warfare 1917 and 1944 are both STRATEGY games.
you have to use BRAIN to play that.

On the other hand, The Last Stand is a SHOOTING game, where you can just click your mouse as fast as you can.
you have to use MUSCLE to play that.

maybe people were hoping Warfare could be the same like The Last Stand.
and fortunately it’s not.

July 14th, 2009 at 9:46 am

Arinji

I have played all of your flash games and enjoyed them all very much. 1944 was a great game, I thought it was a definite improvement on the original.

That being said I think its important that you take a step back and realize that you can’t please everyone all the time. You have immense talent and its obvious that you put a lot of thought and time into your games. The average on armor is still very very high, so take the haters with a grain of salt. Many people like to criticize just to enjoy a sense of power over others and if everyone loved you would be boring. It is hard to see and hear sometimes after working so hard on something though.

Keep in mind though this is the flash medium, a market whose games are more casual than the Wii, THE casual gaming system. If you want to make more complex and satisfying games you might want to consider the commercial gaming world. Your the big fish in a small pond as far as flash is concerned, but you seem to have enough talent to make it in the industry, so maybe that’s something to consider (easier said than done I know).

July 14th, 2009 at 10:05 am

Nick

Warfare 1944 was a good game because you put good effort into it. I think it was very easy to understand as well. Good job on the game

-really looking forward to the last 3

July 14th, 2009 at 5:42 pm

Kevin

Well its good because its just like call of duty 5 and i hope the last stand 3 will have no barricades anymore because its old school,I guess con artist deserves a rest for a week for being stressed out

July 15th, 2009 at 5:56 am

Maxtac

Theres no pleasing the whole internet crowd when it comes to anything.

July 15th, 2009 at 11:10 am

Crazy Cal

Awesome game is Awesome.

July 15th, 2009 at 12:02 pm

Ivan

You should work with Seantcooper, ya’ll could probably make the best game ever.

I’m a big fan of Sean’s if only for the awesome games he was making while I was only a teenager (Syndicate!). A lot of respect for him, but I’m a bit of a lone soldier when it comes to games development.

- Con

July 15th, 2009 at 1:20 pm

Jeff

Brilliant game. I believe it to be much better than the first. Albeit a tad short. But that just means i have to play the other campaign.

I think that all of your games are the best out there as far as flash games are concerned, and this just reinforces it. Well done!

July 15th, 2009 at 4:58 pm

Matt

Don’t sweat it, Con. When you put this game on other websites you’ll bring many new people to play the German campaign on Armorgames, hopefully giving it a better rating.

I’m not worried about the rating so much. I’m actually not “worried” at all, it just raised a few concerns with regards to the complexity of my games and what people are keen to play.

- Con

July 17th, 2009 at 10:24 am

Ash

Well when you look at the first 2 last stands they have turned out VERY well, I think you just need to take the simplicity of games like warfare 1917 so the no-brain game likers are happy, but try to add depth when you can. It will probably be difficult, but there are a lot of diffrent ranges of gamers out there, and you need to try to cater to all of them if possible.

If you look and the game William and Sly on newgrounds…

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/503833

It was very simple, but time was taken on it. If you put time into the graphics of your games, and try to make everything go a bit more smoother, and you get a great foundation for a game.

As for game play, as well as making it smooth and well made, for games like last stand you could maybe have multiple game modes like “Barricade mode” for people who just want to play a quick game on their coffee break, and then a “Story mode” which you could make in depth and more challenging.

To me their are 3 types of gamers. No-brainers, In-depthers and all those in between. No brainers just want a quick, easy game, and in depthers want a complicated, smooth game that makes you think. Having one simple mode, then one detailed mode should do the trick.

As far as ratings and views go, warfare 1917 is your best game, because it was simple, but had some small strategy involved which must have been just enough to satisfy both types of gamers (no brainers and in depthers). So in last stand 3 as well as maybe having to different game modes, you could have some simple, easy to do game play, but add strategic elements and in depth elements as well.

For example like in last stand 2 you chose which buildings to search and so on, that is a good in depth element, so maybe things like gun/character customization (Scopes, camouflage, bigger magazines etc) and different guns for different tasks (E.g. Use a shotgun for close quarters and a mini gun/bazooka to slaughter an incoming horde on the street) or different types of survivors could be used (engineer, soldier, medic etc like in warfare sort of) as in depth elements to make last stand 3 your top game.

Anyway that’s all im going to say for now, just try to think of ways to satisfy the needs of those 3 types of gamers, and try to make a detailed, smooth game like the example I gave.

July 18th, 2009 at 8:27 am

bigraidens

I think that you should make your games the way you like thats the only way to make good games and add a tutorail level that explain the game gameplay step by step

July 18th, 2009 at 10:27 am

ewet8

hey con its been a while sice you made a new post are you keeping your progress on everything under wraps??

July 19th, 2009 at 10:18 am

Unholy_spire

I have to agree with Ash on his points he makes. But 1944 is a great game and i think the warfare series took a step up when you made this addition. You shouldnt have to dumb your games down to please the 12 year old gamers and the people to dumb to use stratedgy, yea it would be nice for a coffee break mode, but if you have that much down time in your job then your takin more than a coffee break. I admit 1944 was harder than hell at first but once i got use to the gameplay and i delveloped my skill at it, i easily beat both campaigns on hard. Really my main point is Con that dont ever tune down your work just to please others because your true fans and real gamers will always come back and play your games, and good luck on last stand 3 ive been waiting for ever to play that one.

July 19th, 2009 at 3:51 pm

bigguy

I liked this game a little bit more because it had more variety. Can you please make a Warfare: 1968 about Vietnam???

July 20th, 2009 at 9:45 am

its a good gamelol

it is overall a good game but i think the detail of the clothes and shoes could be better but other than that its great

July 20th, 2009 at 4:19 pm

Roy Önnerfjord (sweden)

I just want to tell you that the warfare series rules ! there is no better game (s) on the web.

idé: warfare 1864 ? (the American Civil War)

July 21st, 2009 at 12:51 pm

Loppy |Lopsided|

Oh sigh >_> It’s amazing how gung-ho people are to criticise you. I mean, you took a lot of time and effort into this. I’m and avid FPS fan, and i DO play 9+ hours a day Just playing counter-strike source. The reason? I don’t have to think, just point and shoot and turn my Kaziers Orchestra music all the way up. We have enough “Point + click = win” type games out there. We even have enough-point-and-click-and-die type games as well! I guess what im saying, is that no matter what people say we have enough of the mundane and monotonous. We need something new. And unfortunately the problem with many 12-year-olds is that they constantly are forced to learn in school, and after a point they just don’t want to learn anymore. (These are the ones that get addicted and then get their computers taken away because they’re failing class) I wish i could give some good advice, or any type of critique. But the truth, is that no one can. All that matters is that you do what you feel is right. Because 80% of the people who have played one of you’re games try to play another one. And a high percentage of people on your own site, are just waiting for the next game. But nearly everybody who posts, really just wants you to keep doing what you are so very good at. In this day and age, more and more developers are taking advantage of how stupid america (and the rest of the world) is getting.

The bottom line? Do what you feel is right, because in the end, we don’t matter. All there is in the end is how you Feel you did at the end of it. And let yourself have a break for once, and get someone you trust to manage the posts and “glitches” because you NEED A BREAK.

July 23rd, 2009 at 2:10 pm

Nate

It’s good that he’s taking time off. I mean, if he rushed right into his next title, it would be as good as we expect.

July 25th, 2009 at 7:52 am

ChemicalReaper

I just have to say this…
I find it absolutely flipping hilarious that all of the guys think they’re so mature because they aren’t “10 year-olds who didn’t like 1944″ couldn’t spell to save their lives!

July 25th, 2009 at 12:47 pm

yoyo 9999

I like the two warfares !!
it’s very good. I hope you continue .
Thanks and good luck !!

July 26th, 2009 at 12:06 am

reddrgn34

Well having rated many games on armorgames and spent over 3/4 of my life playing them I would say that you have some of the best ideas and impressive execution of browser based flash games around. I am waiting for the day when the flash community is broken down because some great game dev co has swept you up.

Until then continue to make games they way you enjoy them. Yes us gamers are a harsh crowd and expect more, better and longer. But the fact is if you look at gaming franchises of the past some of the bset games that, compared to other titles, sucked but there was a huge fan base. This is a lesson that should be followed by othe game devops, that you CAN build a huge fan base and still make a crappy game BUT you can’t make a crappy game expecting a huge fan base.

The warfare games rocked imo! TLS games were awesome! I can’t wait for TLS3 to come out because I know it will not fail! I dare to say you are becomming the Square Soft of the Browser-based Community. Keep it up!

July 27th, 2009 at 10:44 am

Nate

I have a feeling that cons’ going to surprise us with something.

July 27th, 2009 at 4:40 pm

NotAnIdiot

The one thing I loved in this game above all else is the cover. It makes the game more enjoyable seeing as you’re not in the view of your enemy for most of the time. If you are making another Warfare game, take your time on it. With your talent, it could turn into something great beyond great.

July 28th, 2009 at 2:05 am

killerpope

Con I think you should make a turn based game like fallout 1 and 2 break away from realtime.

July 28th, 2009 at 2:04 pm

Marc

when thinking about this game all i can say its laid out well
the only difference is its not as laid back
still i like 1944 better as i actually think
good job conartist

July 28th, 2009 at 5:09 pm

Sasha from Russia

Already on 10 time has changed in the Warfare. When there will be Last Stand 3?))

July 28th, 2009 at 5:48 pm

Krüspe Large

DUDE! And what happened with the last stand 3?

Man i can’t wait more!!!

July 29th, 2009 at 7:49 am

Dave

Just take your time take the like whole year off and work in January…. as long as you can afford that

July 29th, 2009 at 6:14 pm

bdun

this is a translation of what the jackal is saying:

“you did well with 1944, but it did not live up to my expectations. not because it was bad, but due to the waiting (laughs). 1917 was simple and great, but 1944 was a bit boring.”

he also says that the last stand series so far is awesome, and for you to keep going.
and I agree with him. except for the boring part.

July 30th, 2009 at 4:31 am

palau

hey con how about new warfare games… we have been waiting for quite some time for you to launch a new warfare

July 30th, 2009 at 5:31 am

Rasputin

Greatest Flashgame ever! This dude is a master of his trade! Greetings from Russia

July 30th, 2009 at 9:24 am

Valhelm

Hey, Con, where are you? It’s been a while…

July 30th, 2009 at 4:40 pm

adam

ha con when is the last stand 3 coming out and have you even started on it yet you better I mean take a break but before want to know where you live and ripe you limb from limb like a hord of zombies storming your house or apartment yours adam

July 30th, 2009 at 5:31 pm

Jiri Tvrz

Hi. It is great game. Hard is really hard now. But please. Fix the price of German rifle infantry after bonus which gives half price because the price is still 200. Thanks.

July 30th, 2009 at 10:40 pm

Mono

I just wanna say THANK YOU!!!
you are makin` realy GOOD GAMES
I love playn` them
I say HELLO form Ukraine, Odessa

July 30th, 2009 at 10:59 pm

The game was awesome, yet it’s true that expectations can grow wold but that’s just part of your trade.

July 31st, 2009 at 4:55 pm

chris

honestly the game was as simple asrock paper scissors and who ever saidit was to complicated either has mental promblems or was pissed of cause he couldent get past D-day
but “I” expect more from this game stil quite good

July 31st, 2009 at 8:44 pm

Nijky

Don’t be discouraged, all your games are the best I’ve played and I play online games everyday.

Best graphics
Best playing

I think many people would play for these games.

August 1st, 2009 at 4:07 am

10art1

I agree thatwarfare 1917 was easy. all you had to do (in custom) was deploy tanks the whole time. At first I hated 1944 because it was too overwhelming but then a few weeks later I played it again and it was fun, though i still deploy the panzer most of the time because it was the most powerful ground-based weapon in the war, but still thought the war was unfair at the advantage of germany, but after reading all the hard work you put into it I really appreciate the game (W1917 was my favorite game for weeks after its debut)

August 2nd, 2009 at 1:41 pm

Mooken

I like Warfare 1944 a lot better than 1917 BECAUSE of its strategy and I think that dumbing it down would destroy the value of the game…While the American campaign was a bit too easy (even on hard difficulty), the German campaign was amazing to play. I’ve been following your games since the first Last Stand, and I have to say that I am very impressed with your work and I consider you to be one of the better flash artists on the web.
I honestly cannot wait for Last Stand 3 and I hope you make another Warfare game (possibly a WWII pacific campaign, or Korea, or Vietnam?)

August 5th, 2009 at 8:35 am

megadeath

make it online cuz,colony is a great rival against warfare 1944,if u make it omg

August 6th, 2009 at 6:00 pm

why do your games have to be better than your previous ones? i think you might just put that pressure on yourself. not that you have to make sequels of your games or have to make stuff bigger and better, what about just going with a concept and rolling with it? kinda like the jmtb02 and the game a week thing he’s doing.

i mean no offense, or disrespect, its just an opinion/idea i had. i love the games you make. you take pride in making your games and it truly shows with the perfect blend of graphics and gameplay.

August 6th, 2009 at 7:36 pm

bob

are you going to distribute this on other sites?

August 7th, 2009 at 3:41 pm

Warlord_126 (Transitioning to Ninjat)

I would hate it if I had to simplify my work so other people could understand it.

I hope to see warfare 2006, 1389 (100 years war), 2756, 476 (approx fall of Rome) and other things in the future!

August 7th, 2009 at 5:12 pm

Alex

i am a big fan of your games just wanted to let you know on a small bug in custom games even if officers are turned off if you have planes and artillery enabled the enemy can still call them in but you can’t

August 9th, 2009 at 8:24 am

Alex

also like pretty much everyone else has said about catering to every gamer. The problem can be simple as this if they don’t want to think they shouldn’t play a strategy game. simple as that.

August 9th, 2009 at 8:44 am

dont matter

ok so warfare 1944 was really good. yes there were some bugs but who really cares. there werent enough to say that the game sucked ass… 1917 seemed a little too easy which i assume thats why you made 1944 the way it is. i have a suggestion. it is not on how to improve but more of a new idea. 1917 is WWI, 1944 is WWII… so i think your next game should be the vietnam war since it is the next in the order of how u made them. i honestly think that a game based around the vietnam war could and would be in small places educational and still fun. make some adjustments here and there from 1944 and what i think could be another #1 game for you if you should decide to make it so… take this advice or dont it honestly doesnt matter.. i am just a fan of your work giving some helpful advice should you take it

August 9th, 2009 at 7:12 pm

BreadFan

I liked it. Sure its not StarCraft, but what can anyone expect from Flash and a production team of 1. It wasn’t complicated at all, or hard. I finished US without loosing one battle on NG.

If you made it anymore basic, then there wouldn’t be a game left. I didn’t look at the insrtuctions for either Warfare game. Don’t pander to a wider demographic either. Kids have to grow up some time and people have to get better at games. You can never please everyone and a score of 9+ is damn good.

The only thing I felt was missing was the ability to stop troops from staying at a cover point automatically. Very fun game otherwise.

August 10th, 2009 at 1:10 am

Harrison

I @#$%ing loved the warfare series! It’s something to be very proud of. That said, I want to be involved in your operations, specifically to make a sequel (which I intend to help with) entitled Warfare 1943: Eastern Front (I am a human encyclopedia on the subject, and so is my dad)

August 11th, 2009 at 3:30 pm

Harrison

Oh, BTW, everything ConArtists has ever done is AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

August 11th, 2009 at 4:16 pm

Brian

Both of the Warfare games are amazing. People who complain about the quality have absolutely no idea a) how much time and dedication it takes to make even a single game that works, and b) are probably too young and privileged to assume that everything they encounter shouldn’t be tailor-made to fit their particular whiny needs.

You make incredibly solid games.

Keep it up.

August 12th, 2009 at 11:26 am

Enakerak

Your badass at what you do man

August 12th, 2009 at 7:50 pm

Jacob O.

100

Really, monkeycomandoe http://www.conartistgames.com/index.php/warfare-1944-out-now/#comment-2642 really kinda made himself look stupid. The whole three deploy zones is supposed to make the game challenging. 1917 was nowhere near as hard as this one (I sat back and won the game in a single sitting, both campaigns). Con did a great job on this, and I think that this game deserves a better rating and less harsh of a review than it currently gets. I saw people saying 1917 blows 1944 out of the water. Really? I’ve also read a comment saying, well… http://www.conartistgames.com/index.php/warfare-1944-post-mortem/#comment-2810

While I do not think smacking people with fish is the answer, I really think that most of these people should really think before they speak.

-Speaking freely for the guys with a bit of sense,

-Jacob O.

August 12th, 2009 at 9:58 pm

justmeyouknow

101

hey con,
i really like the warfare series and i would be really happy if there comes another one,

but maybe you could make soms hills where you got more range and holes where you get a little bit cover,

or that you can put another troop men with a squad in cover when a men dies,
for example:
you’ve got a rifle squad,
a man dies
you make a commander,
the commander joins the rifle squad,

btw KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!

greetz me

August 13th, 2009 at 11:58 am

Robert

102

I really like your games Con Artist! Warfare 1944 was not so good like 1917, but still really cool game. You are really good in photoshop, the grampich and the pichtures what you use are awesome. I hope there will be more I thinked about more from fights in WWII, like 1942 British - German in African El Almain, or 1941 Russian - German campain. The Russian campain to fight the Germans back from Moscow, and the German campain, the was to Moscow But I think you want to keep up with the timeline. Anyway, I like the new soldier types in 1944, the new using of Officers is really good. Anyway, I can’t way for your next game!

Greetings by: Robert

August 14th, 2009 at 12:13 pm

103

ALL your games are great, i’m looking forward for any new game of yours, keep it up!

August 15th, 2009 at 11:28 am

Slim

104

I loved Warfare 1917 because of the kind of mindless point and click.

I felt the “Resources” was really what made the game confusing to me.

Everything else was awesome. Especially the more control over the troops. (Supress fire, etc)

In 1917 the clock WAS the resources on each troop and that was perfect.
The clock and the resource thing together has me distracted. I miss everything on the screen because I am trying to see what things cost and looking at the times & the resources. It’s a bit too much. Sorry. I want to watch the men fight. That is what made the first one so cool.

I think if you took that resource thing out, the game would be perfect.

I found a problem. When using the German side. The game keeps slowing to a craw. It works perfect when I use the United States.

Thanks for the Games. I REALLY appreciate & enjoy them.

August 16th, 2009 at 10:53 pm

Bugreporter

105

Okay, some bugs i found..

If you pause the game during an air strike then the plane will just pass your units and do nothing….

Also i found that smoke grenades are hard to use…

To use them you must get in range of an enemy

but when you are throwing them you can only throw them about halfway between you and the enemy…since you fire your gun from far away

August 17th, 2009 at 12:02 am

Dracken

106

As a person who once tried to design games I can tell your work is above the rest. You produce great stuff and I am always impressed with your work. I am glad to see you are learning and constantly improving and I really look forward to more of your releases…

All the best and keep on jumping to the nest level

August 17th, 2009 at 3:00 am

cal

107

i love the games warfare 1917 and 1944 i was thinking that it would be nice to have a warfare 1950 for the korean war and instead of having a mortar team there should be a howitzer team and every thing else could just stay the same. Another thin is that you should give the next game more levels.

August 17th, 2009 at 6:41 pm

Adrian

108

Easily your best game to date! They just keep getting better and better.

Try not to listen to much to the little kids. This game BLEW my expectations away.

Simple minds like simple games!

August 18th, 2009 at 8:54 am

palau

109

can you pls inform us abut the next warfare pls!

August 19th, 2009 at 9:22 am

Cyrus33

110

1944 has a few glitches, not worth sayin everyone else did o.O
One thing, The tank for the germans..Why not just use Panzer Could use a bigger barrel, i mean it is better than the sherman
Also i still think the german Mg should be faster and switched to the Mg42, Mg34 was inferior

August 21st, 2009 at 8:40 am

Jacob O.

111

http://www.conartistgames.com/index.php/warfare-1944-post-mortem/#comment-3007

Again, another person who was confused by it, stating that it ‘…was not so good like 1917…’ But one change I’d like to see is the addition of more war fronts. Like battle with Britain, or Russia or the Pacific.

August 23rd, 2009 at 2:11 pm

Marcin

112

Dude the game was a wonderful experience. Second best to Last stand 2 in my opinion. I mean, seriously, you’re the flash game maker out there on Armor Games, so I have no idea why people are even complaining about a couple “glitches”. I played the game 3 times and I’ve actually had NO problem with any glitches. And technically, this game should be rated mature, or at least Teen, which means no kids should be complaining about difficulty settings. I know when I have kids I’m not gonna let them play violent games till they’re like 14, so I really don’t think you should make it easier. The public you have atm is just lazy and doesn’t want to lose a course in order to beat it eventually.

People, that’s what gaming is all about, it’s supposed to be challenging. Let’s think about the Olympic GAMES, they don’t look so easy, do they?

Con, you’re doing a great job, keep it up.

-M.

August 23rd, 2009 at 9:05 pm

Pooba.

113

I was thinking that mabey after your done creating the last stand three to possibly think about working on making an warfare 2256?

It would probably be an hit (lasers and energy shields galore!)

August 24th, 2009 at 6:26 pm

N0.

114

i noticed an comment about an person who thinks you should start making people pay for your games. and my advice is.. dont do it you will make nothing off of it.

though they are exceptional games no one in their >proper< mind would pay.

August 24th, 2009 at 6:30 pm

Hero Interactive

115

I really enjoyed the post mortem and I get what you are talking about. I’m increasingly concerned with these specific 3 problems as well as we move forward with our games. Especially regarding expectations with the future Bubble Tanks games.

Glad to know we’re in the same boat.

September 4th, 2009 at 10:38 am

chris

116

honestly u did an amazing game
probably the best game on the internet
(or the best ones?) so you shouldent take any crap from kids sayng it was to hard cause if any you did to balanced for example ignoring german unnits supperioritty and americans numbers

September 12th, 2009 at 10:38 pm

117

warfare 1944 is a awesome game, great controls and nice graphs, should have been 1 path in the game for soldiers
10/10

September 18th, 2009 at 1:16 pm

PilotJP

118

A very addicting, fun, and simple game.

Thoughts:
I think the next one should enable multipile units to sit behind the same cover. Atlest two units or maybe a platoon of riflemen can have a sniper or general behind the same cover.

Maybe have a unit that is able to plant mines that your units are able to avoid, but the enemy cannot.

Of course, you could add some light vehicles…jeeps with guns, etc. perhaps.

P.S. I am not a programmer, but I know that doing this cannot be easy, but I like to think that I have good ideas that can make most games somewhat more interesting…i dunno.

September 23rd, 2009 at 3:01 pm

Tuscanraider

119

The less you ask him the more time he can make games.

September 27th, 2009 at 6:48 am

para

120

I liked Warfare 1917 a lot since it has an unique setting and atmosphere… and I had just finished reading In Stahlgewittern (The Storm Of Steel).
Warfare 1944 left me a bit disappointed, because nearly every wargame has this WW2-setting and I wasn´t amazed by the three fronts you are facing. However, playing the last version on “hardened”, it was a lot of fun and challenge.
An “expert” mode for Warfare 1917 would add a lot of replayability and wouldn´t be that much work, would it?
When thinking about part 3, consider the Spanish Civil War or Korea, those would offer nice unusual settings, too.

October 4th, 2009 at 9:49 pm

robert Eller

121

Issue with wehrmacht troops. when Riflemen only cost 100 u can’t order them when only 100 points are left. Instead u have to wait for at least 200 then get charged only 100.

October 11th, 2009 at 4:26 pm

MickGJ

122

The Warfare series is a staggeringly original achievement in a world of me-too games. For me 1944 could never live up to 1917 for the simple reason that up till now no-one has made even a half-way decent WW1 game, let alone one which is both fun to play and maintains respect for its subject matter. God knows what you could achieve with more resources at your disposal.

October 19th, 2009 at 12:09 pm

shup123

123

loved the game. i didn’t know what to expect but all games have glitches its pretty much un-avoidable so great games and i think you should make another

October 28th, 2009 at 12:08 pm

Matt

124

I just wanted to say that both of your games blew me away and that I was thrilled to see you may be considering developing a Civil War version of Warfare. I hope that it comes to fruition because there is not a single decent flash game based on the Civil War out there and if anyone could make a great one, it’s you. Thanks again for the great games.

October 29th, 2009 at 11:12 am

Kevin

125

Heres a crazy idea: make another warfare 1944, but set it near Australia, because some of the biggest battles of the pacific took place there. Good idea, huh?

October 30th, 2009 at 12:41 pm

Jim

126

At just started noticing some of these games (am now 32) but I must say Warfare 1944 is brilliant. Have tried the 1917 game too, and to me it is nowhere near as good.

The only complaint I have is that its not long enough! Maybe you could try an pacific version, ala Call of Duty.

Please please please make another one though! My lunchtimes at work are not the same….

November 4th, 2009 at 6:37 am

Foundation Fan

127

Hello,

2 minor bugs:
* On the “Custom Battle Setup” Board, support is “avialable”
* Conscripts: When riflemen-at-half-cost button is raised, you still need to have 200 pts mini to buy one, instead of 100. You get a not enough resources msg.

Thanks a lot for this great game!

November 10th, 2009 at 3:33 am

shup123

128

hey con i know your busy and everything but i really think you should go back in time if you make another warfare game maybe revolutionary war or something like knights and stuff if you ever want any suggestions just e mail me at shupinator@yahoo.com by the way great game and hope you make another

November 22nd, 2009 at 2:06 pm

Koh

129

Well, I am not sure how this interface might work but. Why don’t you have a simple interface option and a complex interface option? It would please more of the audience (Aka dumb ones).
While pleasing the people who like the complex option, just as much! But my complaint was that, the view was much more slim then the one of 1917.

December 13th, 2009 at 1:17 pm

TeutonicTemplar

130

Hey Con, if your planning on making a pre-gunpowder age ie the age of the sword game e-mail me about era, nation etc. and I’ll try to help you out as best I can. Military History is one of my strong suits.

Yours,
TT

December 28th, 2009 at 8:37 pm

TeutonicTemplar

131

About above quote: I ment with weapons and facts etc. not programming I know nothing about that!

December 28th, 2009 at 8:39 pm

GoodGame

132

I thought Warfare 1944 was awesome, as was the WW1 game. “Over their heads”???? It was just a slight increase in complexity, trust me.

Figure some of your raters are drunk, or under 12, and increased exposure means you run into more of them.

December 31st, 2009 at 12:18 am

GoodGame

133

Sudden thought. How about your next Warfare be about naval battles? Just replace each man with tiny ships. Units could be carriers, destroyers, subs, etc… And keep the lanes concept of warfare, except take out flanking and allow units to go backwards and forwards in their lane.

December 31st, 2009 at 12:21 am

Aita Kivi

134

please make modern warfare with USSR vs USA!!!!!!!!

January 20th, 2010 at 5:08 am

Minh Thanh (Viet Nam)

135

I think you shouldn’t make game about VietNam War. Because, it was a sensitive topic. In Vietnam, there’re many people that pass thought the war are very hate and sad when they see it again. It’ll make them to remember about their painess memories!

February 19th, 2010 at 6:05 pm

sam walsh

136

hey is there ever gonna be a warefare 200 something??but otherwise this game is awesome

February 23rd, 2010 at 1:11 pm

sam walsh

137

woops i ment 2000

February 23rd, 2010 at 1:14 pm

Jog On 6

138

will there be an afgahnistan or sometihng warfare? with USA and the Taliban or something like that.
If so that would be awesome

March 1st, 2010 at 2:26 am

peze

139

I just want to say GREAT WORK! The Warfare games are both awesome, especially 1944 I just love it.

I’m hoping for an extended version with more battlefields but an ancient Warfare game that goes back in time would great too..

March 10th, 2010 at 2:53 pm

Baya

140

Great games, both 1917 and 1944. But please, for the love of all that’s holy, add more strategic element to it. If you lose a battle you shouldn’t just redo the battle, you should lose ground. And isn’t it weird that even though you keep winning you still lose territory in the Germany campaign? Ideally you’d have territories you can fight for with the opposing side. I don’t play the skirmish since you can’t have benefits in it so I personally wouldn’t mind if you took out the skirmish option in order to add more options to the campaigns.

March 13th, 2010 at 12:50 am

Baya

141

Also, equal starting territory for the campaign if there is a strategic add/loss element added.

March 13th, 2010 at 12:51 am

Blacksabbath4

142

Dude, both of the games are awesome. But 1944 does beat 1917.The awesome thing about these games is that it seems as though the series can’t ever end. I always see people leaving comments saying “Make a warfare 1969(Vietnam)” or “Make a warfare 2006″ and I do hope you make a new one very very very soon. And something that would be amazing is making this game an online multi-player. Anyways, thank for listening.

A HUGE Fan,
Blacksabbath4

April 1st, 2010 at 5:53 pm

Canadadry

143

In WWI it was more of a trenches stalemate while in WWII it really was a modern war with tactics and actions. The two are good. I don’t prefer one in particular.

April 29th, 2010 at 3:41 pm

Brasil

144

Você não pode desanimar por causa de certas pessoas (isso sempre tera) Warfare 1944 ficou melhor que o primeiro ( em todos os aspectos) muitas pessoas acha isso (pode ter certeza) por favor continue e lance outra continuação de Warfare

June 15th, 2010 at 6:30 am

Eolienne

145

Bravo pour votre jeu, très dense et complet, auquel on peut jouer, rejouer à l’infini. Longue vie aux éoliennes et notamment aux éoliennes pour particuliers.

Merci mon ami.
- Con

June 21st, 2010 at 5:19 am

READ BEFORE LEAVING A COMMENT

We're looking for comments about this post and it's contents. This is NOT a suggestion box for ideas. This is NOT bug reporting box.

- Don't ask about release dates.
- Don't ask about things that don't exist in the game already.
- Don't leave suggestions.
- Don't leave bug reports.
- Don't be obnoxious.

All comments are moderated. Comments in breach of the above conditions will be deleted.
Most questions can be answered by the Frequently Asked Questions page.

Warfare 1944 - Post Mortem

145 comments so far

Twitters

Updates

Links

September 2010
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Aug
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30