Why I Don't Like 1.x

[Geschosskopf]

[vent mode]

Understand that I got into KSP after literally decades of playing Orbiter or whatever it was called back into the mid-80s. That is to say, all hard-core, true realism space sims, as much as the hardware of the day could handle. I played these because they were the only things going that had any actual rocketry in them, as opposed to "airplanes in space". Anyway, these sims were educational and challenging, but they were decidedly not fun. In fact, they totally crushed my dreams. I grew up watching the space race on B&W TV so as a child I expected that by now I'd be living on Europa. But with the harsh realities of real spaceflight, there will never be any meaningful human presence anywhere off Earth.

Then I found KSP. It was the ideal combination of just plain retro-fun from an era when dreams of meaningful human space presence were still possible, with just enough of a nod towards realism to make it a bit of a challenge. But the challenge never got in the way of the fun, and thus unfettered imagination could take you as far as you wanted to go. So I uninstalled Orbiter and havne't looked at it since.

But then 1.0 came out and all this changed. Now KSP is a wannabe Orbiter and all its previous charm is gone. There are now harsh constraints not only on what a player can do at all, but also on how he can do those things still possible. As a result, KSP is now the worst of both worlds, trapped in the limbo between simulations OT1H and a fun game OTOH. It isn't and never will be a realistic as Orbiter, but now it can't be played like a game anymore, either. And once again, I feel my dreams have been crushed. Even meaningful Kerbal space presence is now more trouble than it's worth.

OK, enough preamble, on with specifics of what I don't like. First off, there's this:

And it's even worse when the definition of "reality" is "just like on Earth". Nothing in the Kerbal solar system can possibly be just like on Earth because everything there is demonstrably made of some exotic form of matter that can't exist under Earthly laws of physics. None of the chemical elemets that make up Kerbals and their planets has anything in common with any element we know. Therefore, it is simply wrong to impose Earth-like aerodynamics and melting points on Kerbal stuff. The new stuff is actually more wrong that the old for this very reason. The only way to impose an Earth-like atmosphere on Kerbin is to make Kerbin the same size as Earth.

Second, in 1.x there seems to have been a deliberate, calculated effort to prevent players from having fun with the possibilities offered by various parts, and instead force them to build stuff all pretty much to the same template. Want to build a spaceplane? Well, now you're pretty much stuck with RAPIERS thanks to the nerfs to things like the 909's atmospheric performace, and you need some huge monstrosity compared to previously. Want to build an interplanetary ship? Well, now you're pretty much stuck with conventional rockets due to the silly, utterly unrealistic heating of the LV-N. Want to get science in career mode? Well, now you're stuck with the long grind of the "Great Blueprint Scavenger Hunt", looking for the plans for new parts in every biome instead of getting science for testing parts, building stations, placing satellites, etc.

Can you transcend this and still do your own thing? Yes, with sufficient toil, you can break the mold a bit, but you can't stray very far affield, so it's not really worth the effort. At least when you remember what you could do before 1.x. Maybe new players, who don't remember the good old days before KSP got self-conscious, won't feel this way, but how many new players will you get once the buzz wears off and "reality" sets in? How many old players will you lose due to disillusionment?

Used to be, if you wanted to impose all these limits on yourself, there were mods for that. And I used them myself. I always had 1 game with FAR, DRE, RT, life support, and all that, side-by-side with a pre-1.x stock game, just to compare the 2, and remind myself of why I had fun with KSP and not with Orbiter. So what happened to the idea of making all this misguided "reality" stuff as difficulty options?

[/vent mode]

Anyway, I for one don't like KSP's new direction and I'm saddened by the fun being sucked out of it. If you like it better now, then good for you. There's no accounting for taste.

[regex]

There's no accounting for taste.

Yeah, that's true. 1.0.x is literally the best KSP has been, IMO. I haven't had so much fun since I picked up the game... I'm actually playing stock for once since 0.22 or thereabouts.

Also, the debug window can revert you back a ways towards the older, terrible placeholder systems we used to suffer through. Changing the drag model to acceleration and spheres, from what I've heard, will help.

Might also want to keep a 0.90 handy for ~nostalgia~

[Bill Phil]

You know, Titan has a denser atmosphere than Earth does. It's smaller, too.

Fluids are fluids, independent of element. This is why the atmo is the way it is.

I found the career in 1.0.x to be far superior to previous versions. I'm doing fairly well, but that's me.

KSP is far from realistic. Even the new atmo isn't all that realistic, it's just a bit better. And the rebalanced parts are balanced well. They had to be, since the atmo was changing lots of things. And the reentry heat adds to the thrill of entering an atmosphere at high speeds.

I like the new KSP. It is still fun for me. The beautiful views of the planets, the mid air flips that still make it to orbit, and the "lego" parts*, among other things, are what seal the deal for me.

*legos are awesome, and you're talking to a guy who grew up with a lot of them...

[Sean Mirrsen]

I've made an SSTO spaceplane that works on nothing but LiquidFuel, using turbojets and an LV-N. For the first time since I forget when, an SSTO spaceplane feels like an accomplishment.

That poor front wheel though. XD

I think the current version of KSP is much better than it was. It strikes a much closer balance between realism and fun, keeping both. It adds challenge, both in design and piloting, that livens the game up where there was nothing interesting happening before.

[Murph]

I'll be extremely blunt. To the OP, you're completely wrong, you're not giving 1.0 a fair chance, you're refusing to adapt to necessary change.

LV-909s were never meant to be a space plane engine, they are a low profile, low gravity lander engine. It's entirely possible to build reasonable space planes using the turbojets and some other rocket engine, you are in no way forced to use the RAPIER. The bad silly stuff with turbojets has mostly gone, such as the absurd air hogging, insane speeds and altitudes, etc; but it has been replaced with HUGE power in a realistic sweet spot for a turbo-ramjet hybrid (SR-71 territory). The flight technique to get a space plane to orbit has changed radically, with the vastly improved atmospheric physics, you just need to learn how to deal with the much better model.

LV-Ns were a bad thing about old KSP, as they gave too big an advantage over just about everything else. Balance was very much needed there, and now there's actually some skill needed to create good, efficient interplanetary ships. The LV-N is still very much useable, you just need to learn how and when to use it, and when not to use it.

As has already been pointed out, if you don't like a particular aspect of the current game balance, go right ahead and change it. It's all there for you to setup exactly how you'd prefer it to be for maximum enjoyment, either in the debug menus, or the various .cfg files. It's really very easy to change just about any aspect of the balance to personal taste. Honestly though, KSP 1.0 is every bit as much fun as old KSP, you just need to let go of most of the "how to do x,y,z" stuff from pre-1.0, and do things the new way. Once you've learned how to work with the new behaviour, it's a much better game overall than it ever was pre-1.0. Squad have done their bit in filling in the gaps, balancing, producing a great 1.0 release, now you have to do your bit and re-learn stuff that absolutely had to change. There is no way that KSP could have been released with the old horrible, broken aerodynamics, for example.

It was obvious that things had to be balanced from rough and ready alpha, to full release. Is the balance perfect? No, it's not, there's still scope across the entire game to better tune the balance, put the polish on bits that didn't quite get enough polish for 1.0, etc. Overall, however, the balance and polish isn't all that bad, it's in the general area of reasonable for most stuff, but some things are better than others. I fully expect the existing 1.0 feature set to be pushed close to perfect by 1.1 and 1.2, we just need to give them a little time to get it done. As it stands, 1.0 is a vastly higher quality product than some big name AAA studios put out under flagship brands and vast budgets. Some big names have put out basically unplayable 1.0 releases in recent memory, taking 6–12 months after release to sort out serious problems, and even then not actually fully delivering; other notable names have slapped a 1.0 sticker on it, fired the dev team, and walked away to leave customers with an overpriced, broken, incomplete game. KSP is ranked in the top 10 of all games on Steam sorted by customer reviews (not the world's best metric, I admit, but still a fantastic achievement for a small developer on their first big games project), and it deserves to be up there.

[OddFunction]

New player here.

Bought the game it came out, version 1.0. I've been playing it everyday nonstop for hours ever since. It's a beautiful blend of realism and difficulty.

The only thing I'd want is a more brutal atmosphere heating I love the challenge. Challenge is the exact reason I bought the game!

[Kegereneku]

I can totally understand OP's fear.(edit: even if I don't share it)

I myself went from Orbiter to KSP because I know that Realism isn't everything.

However KSP stayed pretty vanilla and didn't for example, jumped in the gameplay horror that RSS and Realfuel would be for anyone but a bunch of people.

The new aerodynamic model is actually meant to serve gameplay and fun more than the old one. ReentryHeating can be deactivated but is meant to give new toy to play with.

The only problem is that SQUAD rushed the release, so I think many of us are worried we will not anymore have major bugfix, major rebalance, new mechanic, lot of new parts, a good tech-tree, non-random contract or eventually a new planet.

(plus SQUAD will be first quite busy porting on UNITY 5 for 64bits compatibility)

Edited May 12, 2015 by Kegereneku

[John FX]

New player here.

Bought the game it came out, version 1.0. I've been playing it everyday nonstop for hours ever since. It's a beautiful blend of realism and difficulty.

The only thing I'd want is a more brutal atmosphere heating I love the challenge. Challenge is the exact reason I bought the game!

You may wish to try Deadly Re Entry (DRE) which is for people who wish to adjust re entry heating more to their liking.

[Whirligig Girl]

The LV-N is totally more realistic in its overheating, and even so in 1.0.1, they did make it less hot. Apply radiators liberally.

Anyway, There's nothing about the 1.0 game that doesn't go by the

ideal combination of just plain retro-fun from an era when dreams of meaningful human space presence were still possible, with just enough of a nod towards realism to make it a bit of a challenge.

nature of the game, at least not any more than 0.90. In fact, the added authenticity of the new atmosphere is greatly helpful to this description. They very deliberately were not designing the new atmosphere to be realistic, but just to be not truly awful. They just wanted it to work like an atmosphere ought to work. They wanted the authenticity.

Also, fluids are fluids. Something that looks like an atmosphere should behave as one. The Kerbal Universe is, according to former dev NovaSilisko, mostly normal physics except with a higher constant of gravity.

[Bomoo]

I welcome the increased realism because reality is where I live, and I want to learn more about it through the various means available to me. If KSP was 100% "fun" with nonsensical orbital mechanics, for example, I would've learned nothing about that subject, and I welcome them developing the game mechanisms in a direction that more faithfully reflects reality.

[sal_vager]

I can see what Geschosskopf means, but things change, KSP was always going to change.

It'll probably help to look back to early KSP, at least my experience of it...

I started playing with 0.13.2, and KSP offered a great sense of wonder, we had these little green aliens in a 1/10th scale cartoon solar system with physics that you just didn't see anywhere else, dealing with gravity and reaching orbit was just as new and exciting as the Kerbals themselves, prior to this most space games just let you slide around, if there were physics at all it was no more complex than the "gravity" in a 2D platformer.

KSP offered a lot of potential, I wanted to see how the Kerbal universe developed and I wanted to learn more about real orbital mechanics, KSP taught me basic things and let me have fun while doing so, yes even by exploiting the basic aerodynamics, magic turbines can be fun.

KSP isn't the only game to provide a sense of wonder in this way, for example early Minecraft when zombies dropped feathers was fun, it's the exploration of an unknown world and discovery of new rules that defy what we know that gives that sense of wonder.

A lot of that wonder is gone now, orbital mechanics are now familiar, aerodynamics is more like what I'd expect (no more wingspam), Kerbals and their solar system are pretty much fleshed out.

But unlike Minecraft, which now I can't be bothered with for more than a few minutes at a time, KSP is still fun, it's a different fun though, the wonder of an alien world is gone for me but it's still there for new players, the old tricks may be dead but there's new tricks to learn, and I still enjoy spending my time playing.

Sometimes I play 0.13 but there's really no going back, it wasn't just KSP that changed, the wonder that old players felt has changed, we can't get that back.

[Bomoo]

Kerbals and their solar system are pretty much fleshed out.

Well... except for GP2, a proper asteroid belt, and gas giant moonlets.

[DaMichel]

[vent mode]

Second, in 1.x there seems to have been a deliberate, calculated effort to prevent players from having fun with the possibilities offered by various parts, and instead force them to build stuff all pretty much to the same template. Want to build a spaceplane? Well, now you're pretty much stuck with RAPIERS thanks to the nerfs to things like the 909's atmospheric performace, and you need some huge monstrosity compared to previously. Want to build an interplanetary ship? Well, now you're pretty much stuck with conventional rockets due to the silly, utterly unrealistic heating of the LV-N. Want to get science in career mode? Well, now you're stuck with the long grind of the "Great Blueprint Scavenger Hunt", looking for the plans for new parts in every biome instead of getting science for testing parts, building stations, placing satellites, etc.

[/vent mode]

Perhaps all this stuff are oversights rather than deliberate design choices due to insufficient play testing.

Let me add: Large landing gear without a means for steering. Who thought of that ... ?!

Perhaps it will get fixed. Perhaps not. Then it seems like a job for ModuleManager and various mods.

P.S. Loved your Duna Challenge!

[KSK]

First of all, I respect OP's opinion and it's a pity that the game has lost it's fun for him(?). With that said, I think 'harsh constraints' is a bit of an exaggeration.

The new atmospheric model has certainly made things different. At the very least, the old 'climb to 10K, pitch over 45 degrees, fly to apoapsis' routine no longer works. Fins are more useful now too. But the new model hasn't stopped Whackjob from putting his insane creations into space. On a less grandiose scale, folks have launched X-Wings into space, along with spaceplanes covering a whole range of designs from 'looks like Skylon' to 'yeah - putting a slightly larger wing on that rocket doesn't really make it a plane mate. '

Likewise for re-entry. Yes, heating makes a difference and yes you need to be a little more careful about re-entry trajectories now. The old 'lower periapsis to the ground and hit atmosphere at any old angle' doesn't work very well. But finding a new trajectory that works isn't hard. I've also seen a thread where one player managed to bring an entire space station back from orbit (less a few parts), so it doesn't look like we're constrained to 'realistic' reentry vehicles either.

Spaceplanes constrained to RAPIERS? Not according to the various spaceplane threads. LV-N overheating unrealistic? I haven't got as far as unlocking them yet but it doesn't seem too far fetched for a nuclear reactor to get hot. Some dedicated radiator parts to assist with cooling might be nice but I gather that Regex has found a decent enough workaround already?

Great Biome Scavenger Hunt? OK, that's fair - science comes from different missions now and tastes will vary on whether that's a good thing.

In my opinion, nerfing the science rewards from contracts has improved career mode a lot. I'm finding that needing to go out into space for science has provided a much needed focus for my space program, to the extent that it's become an exploration program again, backed up by a smaller commercial program to raise funds. In 0.9 it felt like I could do any old thing to get science and as a result my space program felt more like a random collection of contracts.

With regard to biome hopping - yeah there's going to be some of that, although so far I've managed to unlock all but one of the 90 point techs and a couple of the 160 point techs, whilst only landing on the Mun once. I've been fairly thorough about getting science from orbit around the Mun and Minmus but it hasn't felt particularly grindy.

[Red Iron Crown]

1.0 has changed a lot of KSP's mechanics and balance, that's for sure. So much so that long time players like me have to give up old tricks and learn new ones. For some, that is a painful process as they don't like feeling like a newb in a game they've played for so long; for me (and others, I'm sure) it's refreshing to have new challenges to develop strategies for, and I'm learning new things all the time again.

The pendulum has swung a bit closer to the realism side, and I don't consider that a bad thing. Part of KSP's lasting appeal for me is that the spaceflight is fairly realistic, figuring out how things work gives a real sense of accomplishment and helps understand real life spaceflight better (I learned more in a couple of hours of orbital maneuvers in KSP than in a lifetime of reading about spaceflight). The new aero and heat mechanics are giving me that feeling again.

All the above is not meant to dismiss Geschosskopf's valid opinion, everyone has a different sweet spot on the arcade-to-simulator spectrum of realism and it's understandable that some will not like the new systems in KSP.

[basic.syntax]

Ratcheting up the "simulation" side of KSP with 1.0 was bound to be controversial.

The atmosphere and thermal balancing continues unabated, trying to strike a good middle ground between the hardcore players and the not-so-hardcore ones is always tough.

Before you needed mods to make KSP more technical... now you may need to find mods to go in the other direction. KSP has a 'new normal' - it will take time to get used to.

[John FX]

Sounds like the OP needs some mods to make spaceplanes more fun for them. As the need for realism is not paramount then there are many mods to suit and the game can be made as unrealistic as desired.

A simple edit to the .cfg on a few parts would also do the trick, possibly alongside turning down heating.

The hardest solution is to try and reverse whatever direction SQUAD have decided to go in.

I don't agree with OP but as they said, there is no accounting for taste, ironically the exact thing they call for...

[Robotengineer]

I respectfully disagree with the OP, KSP needs to have some realism along with the rest of the game, but it must be balanced.

Career mode is a mess, it needs to be decided whether it is a training tool for new players or a hard-ish mode for veteran players. Then it needs to be decided whether it is a space program management game or a space program progression. IMO, a better alternative to current career mode might be a space program sim where you are a kerbonaut, and then you get assigned missions, training, etc, all in first person view. Kind of like an astronaut role-play game with real physics.

Parts need to be heavily rebalanced, the LV-N is an excellent example, it overheats to quickly and its thrust is not even close to it's IRL counterpart. Fuel tanks need a full switch option to switch between LFO and just liquid fuel and their wet-to-dry ratios rebalanced. Wings need a "Paneling" toggle button to remove some lift, drag and weight from them to be used for flat panels, as well as a wet wings option on all wings. There are other fixes necessary, but I can't think of them at the moment.

A) Atmosphere needs to be fit to Kerbin or Kerbin fit to the atmosphere. Having an Earth sized atmosphere on a planet 1/10th the size makes little sense. I would support scaling Kerbin up slightly and slowing its rotation, but others might prefer to have an atmosphere scaled to Kerbin.

We realism players will likely continue to use RO regardless of changes to stock, so Squad is probably better off listening to the majority of players who prefer a smaller system and light realism. However leaving the majority of players with an unbalanced mess is going to turn away as many people as excessive realism is.

My advice to Squad is this: Focus on making KSP the space sim with light realism you seem to want it to be, and balance the game.

[Brotoro]

The LV-N is totally more realistic in its overheating, and even so in 1.0.1, they did make it less hot.

The LV-N is most assuredly NOT realistic in its overheating. A nuclear thermal rocket engine uses the heat from a nuclear reactor to heat up the propellant and eject it out in the exhaust. The heat gets carried away with the propellant...and the temperatures in the core of the NTR are LOWER than the temperature in the combustion chamber of a chemical rocket engine. It HAS to be this way because the solid core of the NTR must stay below the melting temperature of its components. The rest of the engine is regeneratively cooled by the fuel flow just as with chemical engines (and the nozzle is radiatively cooled, just as with most chemical encines). Before the completion of the engine burn, the nuclear reactor is "turned off" (control drums are rotated to face neutron-absorbing materials toward the core, causing the chain reactions to cease), and the fuel flow is continued to carry off heat as the reactor core cools down (as the very-short lived fission products decay away). When this cooldown process is complete, the core of the reactor is at a temperature (around 505 degrees C) where the heat dissipation can handled by the outer parts of the engine radiating it to space. A NERVA-style NTR does NOT require extra radiators. It does NOT melt without extra radiators (the NERVA was designed to be restarted multiple times). It does NOT cause the rest of you ship and the propellant in its tanks to heat up to 1500 Kelvin (I'd like to see anybody try that with any realistic propellant tank). NTRs that get really hot during burns are entirely unrealistic. If this is meant to be some sort of game-balance mechanic to nerf the nuke, there are entirely realistic ways of nerfing the nuke (just lower its Isp) rather than teaching Bad Rocket Science.

[Geschosskopf]

I'll be extremely blunt. To the OP, you're completely wrong, you're not giving 1.0 a fair chance, you're refusing to adapt to necessary change.

And I'll be equally blunt. You absolutely and totally missed my point.

NONE of the changes introduced in 1.x were necessary. The pre-1.x game was what it was, and we all played it for hundreds if not thousands of hours because we liked it. And if we wanted additional features and/or constraints, there were mods for just about everything you could imagine. So almost everybody was happy because everybody could make whatever they wanted of the game.

The only people who weren't happy were a small but very vocal minority of control freaks who couldn't be satisfied with modding their games to play the way they wanted to. No, they believed they were evangelists of the One True Faith and demanded, loudly and frequently, that Squad impose their style of play on everybody else. Arguments that what individuals do in the privacy of their own single-player games should be their own business were lost on these people. And now they've won the day. So instead of everyboby being able to play how they want to, everybody is now forced to play their way, or not play at all.

None of this would bother me at all if 1.x aerodynamics, reentry heating, parts heating (which is fundamentally broken in its mechanics besides being totally misapplied), engine nerfing, and grindy career mode changes were all separate gameplay options, like they were when all these things were mods. Then everybody could still play however they want to. But that's not the situation and that's a damn shame. KSP used to be fun for all. Now it's only fun for the control freaks, who can gloat over having imposed their will on the "ignorant masses" who were minding their own business.

[Fishslap]

[vent mode]

there will never be any meaningful human presence anywhere off Earth.

I know this wasn`t your main point, but I sort of take issue with it a little anyway. The reason space exploration has stopped is entirely political, and not that it`s impossible. You would have to try to say that and we don`t anymore. Particularly in the USA, NASA was set up as a government-directed economic sector to do several things: 1: Produce jobs and economic growth, 2: develop technology and 3: Long term colonization/human presence on other planets. Since then the USA, and the west in general, has moved into a new system of economic fascism where public resources and the public sector in general has been privatized. And the old NASA doesn`t fit into this model because its activities aren`t directly profitable. Therefore the corporations who have swallowed up the public sector don`t want to spend any money on it. From about the time of Reagan NASA had already been warped into a geostrategic resource and it was apparently more important to have lasers, satellites and God only knows what in orbit as military threats than to explore anything. And then of course the space program was dismantled entirely by Bush JR and Obama and no longer exists.

As for human presence in space it`s certainly hard. You would need some way to shield radiation properly for it to even be possible. Just leaving the atmosphere is hazardous and a radiation spike could kill you in low orbit if you`re unlucky. And even if that can be done there is of course the problem of propulsion and distances to contend with. But there`s no reason at all not to keep working on it. If it turns out the way you say then I guess automated terraforming on likely worlds and off we go as popsicles to colonize after a few decades. Our optical and inferometry detection is pretty good by now. What are we up to, 750 confirmed exoplanets?

Edited May 12, 2015 by Fishslap

[Vanamonde]

Please leave politics out of forum discussions, as that never ends well.

Also, we all feel very strongly about things we feel would make the game better or worse, but please don't let those strong feelings turn fellow forum members into enemies. We can disagree with each other without blaming each other for the course of the game's development. Please, talk about the game rather than each other.

[Redjoker]

And I'll be equally blunt. You absolutely and totally missed my point.

NONE of the changes introduced in 1.x were necessary. The pre-1.x game was what it was, and we all played it for hundreds if not thousands of hours because we liked it. And if we wanted additional features and/or constraints, there were mods for just about everything you could imagine. So almost everybody was happy because everybody could make whatever they wanted of the game.

The only people who weren't happy were a small but very vocal minority of control freaks who couldn't be satisfied with modding their games to play the way they wanted to. No, they believed they were evangelists of the One True Faith and demanded, loudly and frequently, that Squad impose their style of play on everybody else. Arguments that what individuals do in the privacy of their own single-player games should be their own business were lost on these people. And now they've won the day. So instead of everyboby being able to play how they want to, everybody is now forced to play their way, or not play at all.

None of this would bother me at all if 1.x aerodynamics, reentry heating, parts heating (which is fundamentally broken in its mechanics besides being totally misapplied), engine nerfing, and grindy career mode changes were all separate gameplay options, like they were when all these things were mods. Then everybody could still play however they want to. But that's not the situation and that's a damn shame. KSP used to be fun for all. Now it's only fun for the control freaks, who can gloat over having imposed their will on the "ignorant masses" who were minding their own business.

I am trying to say this respectfully, but your current opinion is the one you are complaining about. Now if you want the older style, you have to mod just like if you wanted more realism in previous versions. Also you can turn off re-entry heating in the debug menu or at the start of the game along. If you want to get rid of or reduce engine heating go to the debug menu->physics->thermal and adjust those sliders. If you feel the career mode is too grindy then increase the science, reputation, or money rewards. The only thing that that can't be reverted as easily is aerodynamics and even that you can tweak in the debug menu.

[regex]

NONE of the changes introduced in 1.x were necessary.

Totally debatable and subjective. Again, no accounting for taste.

The only people who weren't happy were a small but very vocal minority of control freaks who couldn't be satisfied with modding their games to play the way they wanted to.

So basically now that the "control freaks" don't have to mod their game to get what they want, and you do, there's a problem?

KSP used to be fun for all.

It still is. Maybe you can find a mod that makes the game work the way you want. if not, it might be worth your while to learn how to code. I hear there are some "control freaks" who picked up that skill and are pretty good at it.

[Fishslap]

Please leave politics out of forum discussions, as that never ends well.

Also, we all feel very strongly about things we feel would make the game better or worse, but please don't let those strong feelings turn fellow forum members into enemies. We can disagree with each other without blaming each other for the course of the game's development. Please, talk about the game rather than each other.

So basically be good Germans, is that it? Everything is connected to politics but by golly let`s never talk about it in case someone gets upset? You can censor me if you want. I`m not doing it for you.