How to Fund "Trial of Strength"

[Arjuna]

OK I hear you want a strategic east front game using a modified version of our Command Ops engine. It is do-able and I have given it some thought. I would constrain the scope like we did for our 1985 boardgame "Trial of Strength". This didn't have a production engine but rather a reinforcement schedule. We could add one of these later.

I would also like to model multiple commands so we could support team play.

But the real question is how to fund it. IMO it will take two full time developers two years to complete plus a small army of beta testers. Doing it on the cheap ( ie working from home with no frills and even fewer perks ) it would still cost 500K. We don't have that. So we would need to raise it somehow.

I looked into Kickstarter but you have to be an American company or an American citizen. So that's ruled out.

Has anyone here got some bright ideas as to how we could fund the development?

[Vincenzo Beretta]

> Has anyone here got some bright ideas as to how we could fund the
> development?

Indiegogo (http://www.indiegogo.com/) and a mailbombing about the initiative
to every conceiveable interested site/forum.

Caveat: I do not have any direct experience with Indiegogo. I know it
because a friend of mine tried to fund a comic book (and bombed). However I
see that they do cover videogames too.

[Big Salad]

On 1/30/2013 6:08 PM, Arjuna wrote:
> I looked into Kickstarter but you have to be an American company or an American citizen. So that's ruled out.

Can an American Citizen form an American Company for the purposes of
soliciting the funding and then transferring it to to you when it hits
the target?

Not trying to cheat the system, really. I don't know much about
Kickstarter. If it is a legitimate approach to satisfy their
conditions, I would be willing to help. And I'm probably not the only one.

If there is some sense in this, I'll email you for more details. If
Kickstarter would just call this kind of thing a scam, though...

(Don't email Big.salad... not sure if I remember the email password)

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 31 jan, 01:51, Big Salad <Big.sa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/30/2013 6:08 PM, Arjuna wrote:
>
> > I looked into Kickstarter but you have to be an American company or an American citizen. So that's ruled out.
>
> Can an American Citizen form an American Company for the purposes of
> soliciting the funding and then transferring it to to you when it hits
> the target?

This is how Martin Wallace (UK) is doing it for his Kickstarter
campaigns - he's got a US partner who's basically just a front.

IndieGogo : wouldn't go there as it has this major drawback :

Kickstarter : backers only get charged when and if the project is
totally funded

IndieGogo : backers get charged, whether or not the project target is
reached -> this ensures that many, many gamers, me included, won't go
near an IndieGogo project.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 31 jan, 00:08, Arjuna <d...@panthergames.com> wrote:
>
> But the real question is how to fund it. IMO it will take two full time developers two years to complete plus a small army of beta testers. Doing it on the cheap ( ie working from home with no frills and even fewer perks ) it would still cost 500K. We don't have that. So we would need to raise it somehow.

I know you won't listen ...but you have to scale it back to where
you're totally uncomfortable with it :)

Team play : chuck it out
Granularity : 20 km from data-point to data-point and corps/army sized
units
Supply : make it so rudimentary / design for effect you can code it in
a day
etc.

I know this is not your thing, so my very best and sincere advice is
to stay away from this

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Frank E]

fOn Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:08:04 -0800 (PST), Arjuna

<da...@panthergames.com> wrote:

>OK I hear you want a strategic east front game using a modified version of our Command Ops engine. It is do-able and I have given it some thought. I would constrain the scope like we did for our 1985 boardgame "Trial of Strength". This didn't have a production engine but rather a reinforcement schedule. We could add one of these later.
>
>I would also like to model multiple commands so we could support team play.
>
>But the real question is how to fund it. IMO it will take two full time developers two years to complete plus a small army of beta testers. Doing it on the cheap ( ie working from home with no frills and even fewer perks ) it would still cost 500K. We don't have that. So we would need to raise it somehow.

I don't think you could raise that much (but I'm in for $100 if you
try). It seems to me that you're approaching this backwards. Figure
out how much you could realistically ask for and get, say $150K, and
then define the scope of the game so it fits within that budget.

>I looked into Kickstarter but you have to be an American company or an American citizen. So that's ruled out.

Kickstarter is US and UK now, not sure if that helps you. Form a
company with someone you trust in the US or UK, make sure you keep
control of the bank account <g> and do it that way.

Regards, Frank

[kev0...@gmail.com]

> I know you won't listen ...but you have to scale it back to where
>
> you're totally uncomfortable with it :)
>
>
>
> Team play : chuck it out
>
> Granularity : 20 km from data-point to data-point and corps/army sized
>
> units
>
> Supply : make it so rudimentary / design for effect you can code it in
>
> a day

What you leave out will be far more important than what you leave in, and what you leave in will never be as consistently perfect as your demonstrated high standards will dictate. The level of abstraction required will be new territory for you. It will be a tough concept to scope: again relatively new territory, as your previous titles have been working off broadly the same high-level (and excellent) scoping for over a decade.

There is a part of me that says the the User Manual should always be written before the first line of code is punched!

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 31 jan, 17:58, kev009...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> There is a part of me that says the the User Manual should always be written before the first line of code is punched!

In essence that's how every IT farm I ever worked for was run : the
functional specs define what the program must do, nothing more,
nothing less (in essence this is the manual) , then the tech specs are
written and only then is the first line of code written. Deviations
from this flow are only made for proof-of-concept coding stuff and the
inevitable changes due to changed user requirements or budget
constraints

Most pc wargame programmers know this very well, they just don't do it
that way :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Arjuna]

On Friday, February 1, 2013 3:58:43 AM UTC+11, kev0...@gmail.com wrote:
> What you leave out will be far more important than what you leave in, and what you leave in will never be as consistently perfect as your demonstrated high standards will dictate. The level of abstraction required will be new territory for you. It will be a tough concept to scope: again relatively new territory, as your previous titles have been working off broadly the same high-level (and excellent) scoping for over a decade.
>
>
>
> There is a part of me that says the the User Manual should always be written before the first line of code is punched!

Thanks for the advice. Despite what Eddy tells you ,) this isn't exactly new territoy for me. After all I designed the original Trial of Strength (TOS)boardgame and it's full of abstraction. Our company motto is "when realism counts". So when it doesn't count I am all for a good abstraction. The issue is all about focus.

As to writing the manual first, well I have been writing system requirements and functional specs for the military for sometime now. So I know just how useful these can be. I also know more than the average joe about conducting original R&D and what's required to get that done. Often when doing original R&D you have to rewrite the original design because you encounter something that doesn't allow you to proceed as you originally intended.

The old waterfall approach just doesn't work for projects with a high quotiant of original R&D. For these you use protyping or trial and error if you like. It's far better to work up a quck initial design, start coding and then test to see if it's going to work than spend inordinate time speccing the design in full.

If you want to find out why some of those big military simulation projects cost the hundreds of millions of dollars then look no further.

[Arjuna]

Frank,

Once again thanks for the advice.

Re limiting our funding request to $150K. I agree that its always going to be easier to get a smaller amount. But to be quite frank Frank, I just cannot see how we could modify our existing engine to cater for a strategic east front game without spending more. And designing a new one from scratch is going to cost even more.

Let's have a look at just a few of the things we need to change or address. First we need to redo the way we model combat. Let's assume we are moving Bde or Div sized units. Then these are going to occupy a huge area and they may come into contact with multiple enemy units at different points of their occupied area. So we are going to have to come up with a methodology for resolving multiple LOS checks and engagements from the different grids occupied by a unit.

We need review the supply system. In particular we need to model railways as resupply conduit. Despite what Eddy goes on about it will take more than a day.

We will need to revise how we allocate forces to multiple objectives because there will be a lot more objectives in a strategic level game.

We will need to design a new weather system as it's ridiculous to expect that Leningrad and Stalingra will have the same weather conditions each and every day of the year.

There are many more aspects that will require both AI and UI development work to adapt them to the strategic level.

And then there is all the data that needs to be created. If we upscale by a factor of 20 - ie 3000 personnel per German unit (ie a Bde ) say 6000 pers for Soviet units (ie rifle div), then there will be around 500 units per side. Using the same upscale factor of 20 for space we get 2km per grid and a bloody great map of eastern europe that stretches 2,500 x 2,000 kms or 1,250 x 1,000 grids. And even at that we will probably have to ignore northern Finland. Time interval would be 20 minutes.

With this scale there would be significantly more load on the engine's performance. To allow it to cope with the extra load we would have to support multiple commands each processing their AI through a seperate thread thus taking advantage of multiple core CPUs.

Alternatively, we could upscale by a factor of 100 and deal in Division sized units, 10km grids and 100 minute intervals. That would fit within the engines current performance parameters. However, there would have to be mods made to the resupply system so that it checks more regularly than it does now so as to handle at least daily resupply runs. But is that the scale you would want.

Regardless of the scale it will take a significant effort.

[mite...@hotmail.com]

Oh well, here'e my 2cents (1.91 cents US, if only they would stop printing money).

I know this is not generally useful but I do want to bring it up.

$500 000 by 1000 copies sold would be $500 each copy.
2000 copies sold would be $250 each copy.

How much based on the number of copies sold would each copy of the new games be priced at?

If an average number of copies sold over the range of games so far produced, or a reasonable guestimate of where you think the numbers are, was made, then you could simply tell would-be purchasers of the new game what it would cost (based on your multi-player etc description).

People, (however many previous purchasers actually read this thread) would respond with "I'd be prepared to pay this amount (no tyre-kickers or bargain hunters). If the game was to happen, then the number of buyers * the said amount would have to be paid up-front.

Arjuna, you'd know how slightly realistic the possible number of buyers possible * price of copy would be.

I know you sold 2 and I suspect you sold 4 copies previously, (though you may just have given the other 2 away :).

You have to sell 5000 copies to keep the price at $100. Did you ever sell that many?

This is all pub talk, but if you sold 5000 copies, there is some chance that the great majority of buyers are aware of this forum.

That's still your best highly unlikely chance :))
Pay up, or shut up :))

Don't start work until the money's there (if the acceptances were made).
Naturally then, there'd be incredible pressure to actually make the game.

[mite...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, 31 January 2013 09:08:04 UTC+10, Arjuna wrote:

On Thursday, 31 January 2013 09:08:04 UTC+10, Arjuna wrote:

- show quoted text -

2nd version. forgot about the early adopters.

[dougb]

Dave out of curiosity why would you need Los checks at this scale? Would it not simply be possible to make it so that a unit gains contact at a certain distance from a unit automatically, and that over time the degree of info that you have on the opposing unit increases - with modifiers for the proficiency of the unit, commander rating, air etc.?

I'm not a programmer and you obviously know your engine like the back of your hand so I was wondering if it is possible to adapt the engine to do things like that?

Still think TOS is still by far the best Corps level Russian front game ever done.

Thanks,

Doug

[Dan]

Dave,

People are making interesting points. To hit a market fat enough to provide the volume you need, I think want you may well need to break with the PC game publishing paradigm. I would first republish ToS as a boardgame and rebuild Panther as a boardgame outfit AND a computer game outfit. Then, I would think about doing the game for iOS. It's where the market is going, IMO.

I think both efforts could be run somewhat in parallel and you could probably find a US partner to manage both parts of the kickstarter program.

It's exciting to hear of your interest in this effort!

Dan

[ben.ell...@gmail.com]

Ok, a few things just fell into place in my brain..

A guy called "Arjuna", from some random news-net group, mentions he's the designer of Trial of Strength. I look over my shoulder, see that I have a copy of the game and pull it off the shelf. It turns out my rule-book has been signed by Dave O'Conner. Think to myself "I picked it up second hand, wonder how far it traveled?" Find out that Dave is from Canberra, Australia and that I may have walked past him a few times at Cancon. Then find out he did the Command Ops series! Then realise that Arjuna IS Dave O'Connor.

If I want to support Panther Games, where is the best place to buy Command Ops? Matrix Games?

Ben

[Arjuna]

On Friday, February 1, 2013 2:18:05 PM UTC+11, b5m...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Ok, a few things just fell into place in my brain..
>
>
>
> A guy called "Arjuna", from some random news-net group, mentions he's the designer of Trial of Strength. I look over my shoulder, see that I have a copy of the game and pull it off the shelf. It turns out my rule-book has been signed by Dave O'Conner. Think to myself "I picked it up second hand, wonder how far it traveled?" Find out that Dave is from Canberra, Australia and that I may have walked past him a few times at Cancon. Then find out he did the Command Ops series! Then realise that Arjuna IS Dave O'Connor.
>
>
>
> If I want to support Panther Games, where is the best place to buy Command Ops? Matrix Games?
>
>
>

Ben,

'Tis a small world matey.

Just buy Command Ops from Matrix.

[kev0...@gmail.com]

If you think I was preaching or insinuating that you are inexperienced, you are wrong. I am pretty aware of your background from interviews over the years. Your products are clearly the work of highly experienced professionals. But my point stands. I have wasted so much time and money on unfocused, ill-scoped wargames over the years, games that could have done with more thinking up front, and less adding to the pot in media res. Nothing you have ever produced remotely falls into that category, but my experience leads me to believe that strategic level games present such a multiplicity of design options that keeping the boiled potatoes from melting into mash is a particualr challenge.

[kev0...@gmail.com]

> 'Tis a small world matey.
>
>
>
> Just buy Command Ops from Matrix.

You will not be disappointed. It would be cheap at $200.

[kev0...@gmail.com]

Have you given up on the idea of an East Front game using Command Ops engine?

[Arjuna]

On Friday, February 1, 2013 9:02:29 PM UTC+11, kev0...@gmail.com wrote:
> Have you given up on the idea of an East Front game using Command Ops engine?

No. This is an ongoing project. A fair bit of the data content has been done. However, it requires AI development to model Soviet doctrines. This will get done over time.

I suppose I see the strategic level as having a bigger potential market. Hopefully one that can be economically viable.

[kev0...@gmail.com]

> I suppose I see the strategic level as having a bigger potential market. >Hopefully one that can be economically viable.

You would have my $100 in a shot. War in the East is a great game, but a grog game.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 1 feb, 15:39, <adel...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
> What does Arjuna mean? Or is Dave the alias?
>
> My handle means "A Delphi", as in the RAD IDE from what used to be
> Borland...

You sure you're not an oracle ? :)

I actually still do a lot of programming in Delphi 7 for those odds
and ends jobs - you know, get data someplace, massage it, write it
someplace else. I can get this sort of thing written before those Java
guys get their Eclipse editor configured for the particular add-on
needed for the job

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 14:39:56 +0000 (UTC), <ade...@inbox.com> wrote:

>What does Arjuna mean? Or is Dave the alias?

An extract from Wikipedia.

The character of Arjuna is described as one whose mind is spotless and clean of all impurities. Krishna in the Bhagavad
Gita refers to Arjuna as Anagha, which means "pure of heart" or "sinless".
On the 17th day of the Great War when Karna is trying to extricate his chariot from the mud, Arjuna (in spite of all the
cruelty and unchivalrous acts previously meted out by Karna to the Pandavas) hesitates to kill Karna. He does so only at
the behest of Krishna. This reveals his restraint and self-control.
Arjuna's nobility is manifested in his magnanimity in victory and compassion towards adversaries.
He bears all the injustice of the Kauravas with stoicism and yet hesitates to kill them just before the war.

There's lots more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjuna
Arjuna is a major player in whatever universe you may reach.

.
.
-------------------------------------------------
.....Design Parameters
.....-----------------
.....You can have it quick
......You can have it cheap
.......You can have it good
.
.
.....Pick Any Two
=================================================

[Arjuna]

On Saturday, February 2, 2013 8:06:01 AM UTC+11, Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo) wrote:
>
> >What does Arjuna mean? Or is Dave the alias?
>
>
>
> An extract from Wikipedia.
>
>
>
> The character of Arjuna is described as one whose mind is spotless and clean of all impurities. Krishna in the Bhagavad
>
> Gita refers to Arjuna as Anagha, which means "pure of heart" or "sinless".
>
> On the 17th day of the Great War when Karna is trying to extricate his chariot from the mud, Arjuna (in spite of all the
>
> cruelty and unchivalrous acts previously meted out by Karna to the Pandavas) hesitates to kill Karna. He does so only at
>
> the behest of Krishna. This reveals his restraint and self-control.
>
> Arjuna's nobility is manifested in his magnanimity in victory and compassion towards adversaries.
>
> He bears all the injustice of the Kauravas with stoicism and yet hesitates to kill them just before the war.
>
>
>
> There's lots more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjuna
>
> Arjuna is a major player in whatever universe you may reach.
>

Yes Arjuna is the hero from the great Indian epic the MahaBarata and in particular features in the BhagavaGita which covers the great climactic battle in which Arjuna must lead the forces of his king into battle with his kings enemies. Alas on the eve of the battle he is racked by worries for many of his cousins are on the other side. He is sick of killing and questions whether he is doing the right thing.

The driver of his chariot is Lord Krishna and the BhagavaGita contains the discourse between them prior to the battle. It is one of the great philosophical texts and addresses the need for dharma or right action (sometimes refered to as duty but its more than that). It also covers the need to cultivate the great virtues of which courage is the highest. (So really Arjuna is the cultivator and attainer of virtues. The notion of sin doesn't really feature in the Eastern spiritual tradition.)

By the end of the discourse Arjuna is resolved to do his dharma and lead his army into battle, resolved to fully commit but to remain detached to the outcome. And so the BhagavaGita ends with the great archer being driven pellmell into battle.

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

But "Dave" is also an alias.
.
.
===============================================
Support bacteria.
They're the only culture some people have.

[Paul Ney]

"Arjuna" <da...@panthergames.com> wrote on 31.01.2013 11:57 GMT the
message news:aed0abec-7583-42a8...@googlegroups.com

> On Friday, February 1, 2013 3:58:43 AM UTC+11, kev0...@gmail.com
> wrote:

>> There is a part of me that says the the User Manual should always be
>> written before the first line of code is punched!

> As to writing the manual first, well I have been writing system
> requirements and functional specs for the military for sometime now.
> So I know just how useful these can be. I also know more than the
> average joe about conducting original R&D and what's required to get
> that done. Often when doing original R&D you have to rewrite

> The old waterfall approach just doesn't work for projects with a high
> quotiant of original R&D.

There is much wisdom in this sentence by kev0...@gmail.com and
experienced R&D peoples understand it. But I'd like to elaborate on
this. One must attain a very understanding of the final product, before
the production line is switched on. As mathematicians use to say: a good
understanding of the problem is the first half of the solution...

Some peoples might decide to go to war just because the situation is
advantageous, also fearing that some actors might change their mind, and
intending to set the final goals while on the way...

> If you want to find out why some of those big military simulation
> projects cost the hundreds of millions of dollars then look no
> further.

The NASA effect? This time not the frying pan, but the policy of "going
private"? ;-) I.e. cooperating with private companies producing quickly
and for less money?!

Regards, PY [Paul_Ney/at/t-online.de]

[Paul Ney]

"Arjuna" <da...@panthergames.com> wrote on 30.01.2013 23:08 GMT the
message news:4042cddc-e807-4f1f...@googlegroups.com

> OK I hear you want a strategic east front game using a modified
> version of our Command Ops engine. It is do-able and I have given it
> some thought. I would constrain the scope like we did for our 1985
> boardgame "Trial of Strength". This didn't have a production engine
> but rather a reinforcement schedule. We could add one of these later.
>
> I would also like to model multiple commands so we could support team
> play.
>
> But the real question is how to fund it. IMO it will take two full
> time developers two years to complete plus a small army of beta
> testers. Doing it on the cheap ( ie working from home with no frills
> and even fewer perks ) it would still cost 500K. We don't have that.
> So we would need to raise it somehow.
>
> I looked into Kickstarter but you have to be an American company or an
> American citizen. So that's ruled out.
>
> Has anyone here got some bright ideas as to how we could fund the
> development?

It seems (AFAIK) that there is no Silicon Valley for the professional
wargaming branch. Those smart "venture capital firms" really pushed the
development and the race. The market rewards the good products... And
they knew the way to the goal -- the way was not necessarily the goal.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Valley .

A further idea: what about cooperating with highly specialized firms and
professionals in the (so called) "cheap-manpower countries"?! This is a
very big market, a great number of respectable Western companies already
embarked on this way. Then you could not only find excellent coders, but
top scholarly developers too.

Regards, PY [Paul_Ney/at/t-online.de]

[mite...@hotmail.com]

On Sunday, 3 February 2013 14:13:32 UTC+10, Paul Ney wrote:
> "Arjuna" wrote on 30.01.2013 23:08 GMT the

Was the story about the large Western carmaker
which had a joint-venture factory in the east and
was told after some period of time that the joint-venture
was finished as they didn't need them any more simply an
urban myth?

Anyway, as long as there are luxury car look-alikes that
even the major car manufacturers can do nothing about,
it might be a good way to get your game, or something that
resembles it, spread much further.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <1c15266a-33c8-4420...@googlegroups.com>,
mite...@hotmail.com says...

> On Sunday, 3 February 2013 14:13:32 UTC+10, Paul Ney wrote:
> > "Arjuna" wrote on 30.01.2013 23:08 GMT the

Is anyone besides myself wondering whether funding development of a
product before you see it, know what it will be, or know whether it ever
will be is kinda a frakked-up way to run a railroad?

I gotta say, I much prefer the traditional method, whereby someone shows
me a product and I decide whether to buy it or not.

I mean, not to impugn these New Wave methods of funding projects, but if
I thought I could make a killing by building a gas station / convenience
store at the corner of Dorset St. and Pond Rd., I wouldn't be standing
at the corner wearing a sandwich board reading, "If you'd like to have a
gas station here, put $25 in the hat and we'll see."

Whatever happened to taking a business plan to a bank?

--
Giftzwerg
***
"What makes an assault weapon an assault weapon? Randomly selected
cosmetic features that look scary to ignorant liberals, but have nothing
material to do with the function of the firearm. If liberals had more
sense, they would be embarrassed."
- Senator Ted Cruz

[Paul Ney]

"Giftzwerg" <giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote on 04.02.2013 01:40 GMT the
message news:MPG.2b78dba6c...@news.giganews.com

> In article <1c15266a-33c8-4420...@googlegroups.com>,
> mite...@hotmail.com says...
>
>> On Sunday, 3 February 2013 14:13:32 UTC+10, Paul Ney wrote:
>> > "Arjuna" wrote on 30.01.2013 23:08 GMT the
>
> Is anyone besides myself wondering whether funding development of a
> product before you see it, know what it will be, or know whether it
> ever will be is kinda a frakked-up way to run a railroad?
>
> I gotta say, I much prefer the traditional method, whereby someone
> shows me a product and I decide whether to buy it or not.

Let me recall that even Columbus was begging at the Spanish Court...
As president Kennedy gave order to land on the Moon by the end of the
60ies, the rockets, orbiters and landing modules still had to be
designed... But he learned that it was possible to achieve the goal.

> I mean, not to impugn these New Wave methods of funding projects, but
> if I thought I could make a killing by building a gas station /
> convenience store at the corner of Dorset St. and Pond Rd., I wouldn't
> be standing at the corner wearing a sandwich board reading, "If you'd
> like to have a gas station here, put $25 in the hat and we'll see."

If it works, why not? ;-)

> Whatever happened to taking a business plan to a bank?

Times change... Some venture capital firms in Silicon Valley operated
with "business scouts". And what about investment firms? There are
further ways to promote new enterprises.

> --
> Giftzwerg
> ***
> "What makes an assault weapon an assault weapon? Randomly selected
> cosmetic features that look scary to ignorant liberals, but have
> nothing material to do with the function of the firearm. If liberals
> had more sense, they would be embarrassed."
> - Senator Ted Cruz

Is this from a classified Field Manual?

Regards, PY [Paul_Ney/at/t-online.de]

[Paul Ney]

<mite...@hotmail.com> wrote on 04.02.2012 00:16 GMT the message
news:1c15266a-33c8-4420...@googlegroups.com

> On Sunday, 3 February 2013 14:13:32 UTC+10, Paul Ney wrote:
>> "Arjuna" wrote on 30.01.2013 23:08 GMT the

I acknowledge the full quotation of my previous message, but I decided
to delete it here as Your mailer inserted a lot of empty lines. But I
kept your second quotation "A further idea: what [...] too."

> "A further idea: what about cooperating with highly
> specialized firms and professionals in the (so called)
> "cheap-manpower countries"?! This is a very big market,
> a great number of respectable Western companies already
> embarked on this way. Then you could not only find
> excellent coders, but top scholarly developers too."
>
> Was the story about the large Western carmaker
> which had a joint-venture factory in the east and
> was told after some period of time that the joint-venture
> was finished as they didn't need them any more simply an
> urban myth?

Well, business partners might also change their mind and go separate
ways, kind of a business divorce. This can happen in the same country
too, not only in the "globalized world".

Regards, PY [Paul_Ney/at/t-online.de]

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 4 feb, 02:40, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Whatever happened to taking a business plan to a bank?

Kickstarter happened.

... and it totally stumped me why people would pour money into
unproven designs of unproven designers but the reality is they do.
It's got to be something that appeals in a sub-conscious way, giving
you the feeling that you're also partly a co-creator of that
particular project because you've chipped in. It's a feel-good move
combined with a hint of exclusivity as you'll get a product that's not
going to be widely available or distributed.

Expect a thesis on the psychology of Kickstarter to arrive real soon
now :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 4 feb, 04:56, <adel...@inbox.com> wrote:
> isn't outsourcing a net gain for wargamers as it means
> that low cost developers

.. will produce low quality software.

Here's some data that's only slowly trickly into the brains of IT
managers everywhere : real good Indian programmers are *not* working
for $5 an hour in some cubicle in Mumbay, they're making $100 an hour
and more in the West. Who you've contracted with are the also-rans and
sure, it only costs peanuts, but what you get is code produced by
monkeys.

I've yet to see an outsourcing project not ending up in the trash-can
or not causing much trouble and costs later on. It's now 2 years after
we've outsourced some stuff to India and we're currently quietly
looking into possibilities of taking it back.

Only managers with short-term goals still see outsourcing as the
perfect tool

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 1 feb, 03:19, Dan <09.tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think want you may well need to break with the PC game publishing paradigm.  I would first republish ToS as a boardgame and rebuild Panther as a boardgame outfit AND a computer game outfit.  Then, I would think about doing the game for iOS.  It's where the market is going, IMO.

Nice idea, but here's the problem with it : there's no money in
boardgames *unless* you publish it yourself and thus get a bigger part
of the cake. What Kickstarter did was remove one obstacle - the
funding - from the publisher workload and worries, but the real
downside of publishing boardgames yourself is that it's very time
consuming and you really need someone who's jumped through the hoops
before to show you the ropes.

One guy who's gone this route is Dan Verssen of DVG games - he's
publishing board wargames and their iOs and pc equivalents.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <752830d5-b36b-4b3a-8bd3-1f8bdddfb90c@
5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > Whatever happened to taking a business plan to a bank?
>
> Kickstarter happened.
>
> ... and it totally stumped me why people would pour money into
> unproven designs of unproven designers but the reality is they do.
> It's got to be something that appeals in a sub-conscious way, giving
> you the feeling that you're also partly a co-creator of that
> particular project because you've chipped in. It's a feel-good move
> combined with a hint of exclusivity as you'll get a product that's not
> going to be widely available or distributed.

All right, then Kickstarter is it. Thread over.

Right?

[Giftzwerg]

In article <kenasp$cqs$1...@py.eternal-september.org>, Paul...@t-online.de
says...

> > I gotta say, I much prefer the traditional method, whereby someone
> > shows me a product and I decide whether to buy it or not.
>
> Let me recall that even Columbus was begging at the Spanish Court...
> As president Kennedy gave order to land on the Moon by the end of the
> 60ies, the rockets, orbiters and landing modules still had to be
> designed... But he learned that it was possible to achieve the goal.

Ah. So you're suggesting that Arjuna approach the government for money?

Hey, these days, it's almost sure to work.

> > I mean, not to impugn these New Wave methods of funding projects, but
> > if I thought I could make a killing by building a gas station /
> > convenience store at the corner of Dorset St. and Pond Rd., I wouldn't
> > be standing at the corner wearing a sandwich board reading, "If you'd
> > like to have a gas station here, put $25 in the hat and we'll see."
>
> If it works, why not? ;-)

Then why are we having this thread? Just totally go Kickstarter, and
you've got an automatic success on your hands.

Right?

> > "What makes an assault weapon an assault weapon? Randomly selected
> > cosmetic features that look scary to ignorant liberals, but have
> > nothing material to do with the function of the firearm. If liberals
> > had more sense, they would be embarrassed."
> > - Senator Ted Cruz
>
> Is this from a classified Field Manual?

It must be, since every numb fucking journalist in the world keeps
bleating about "assault weapons" without being able to supply a
definition of what an "assault weapon" is. Here's my definition:

Assault Weapon (n) Conventional, ordinary, bog-standard semiautomatic
rifle with detachable magazine blinged-out with all sorts of "military"
gizmos that increase the lethality of the weapon not one whit, but
delights leftists who see them as the low-hanging fruit on the way to a
complete and utter shattering of 2nd Amendment rights.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <MPG.2b796e924...@news.giganews.com>, giftzwerg999
@hotmail.com says...

> > Let me recall that even Columbus was begging at the Spanish Court...
> > As president Kennedy gave order to land on the Moon by the end of the
> > 60ies, the rockets, orbiters and landing modules still had to be
> > designed... But he learned that it was possible to achieve the goal.
>
> Ah. So you're suggesting that Arjuna approach the government for money?
>
> Hey, these days, it's almost sure to work.

... but don't make the mistake of asking for %500K. If you're
approaching Obungle and his Corps of Flatterers, make sure you ask for
ten *billion* dollars to fund Green Human-Created Conflict Games.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 4 feb, 12:58, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <752830d5-b36b-4b3a-8bd3-1f8bdddfb90c@

> 5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > > Whatever happened to taking a business plan to a bank?
>
> > Kickstarter happened.
>
> > ... and it totally stumped me why people would pour money into
> > unproven designs of unproven designers but the reality is they do.
> > It's got to be something that appeals in a sub-conscious way, giving
> > you the feeling that you're also partly a co-creator of that
> > particular project because you've chipped in. It's a feel-good move
> > combined with a hint of exclusivity as you'll get a product that's not
> > going to be widely available or distributed.
>
> All right, then Kickstarter is it.  Thread over.
>
> Right?

It certainly is an option, but lets list the downsides of not going
with an established publisher :

1) Kickstarter is not a charity organization - they take 10%

2) Everything from CC handling to distribution / after sales, company
server, forum software, to pr & marketing will have to be done by you
- this takes time - time equals opportunity cost. I factor this to be
at least 20%

3) Visibility sells games - if you're with an established publisher
more people will see you product than if you have your own website in
some crummy corner of the 'net. Another 20% ?

Factor in all of the above and I'm not sure the end result will be a
lot different than just publishing your game with an established
publisher who takes a 50% cut.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Climate Change]

On 4/02/2013 10:35 PM, eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> It certainly is an option, but lets list the downsides of not going
> with an established publisher :
>
> 1) Kickstarter is not a charity organization - they take 10%

Compared to a publisher who usually have a lot of conditions attached to
their funding (plus they take a lot more than 10% when it gets to
selling it).

> 2) Everything from CC handling to distribution / after sales, company
> server, forum software, to pr & marketing will have to be done by you
> - this takes time - time equals opportunity cost. I factor this to be
> at least 20%

Steam.

> 3) Visibility sells games - if you're with an established publisher
> more people will see you product than if you have your own website in
> some crummy corner of the 'net. Another 20% ?

Steam.

> Factor in all of the above and I'm not sure the end result will be a
> lot different than just publishing your game with an established
> publisher who takes a 50% cut.

Kickstarter is like any other game-funding process - you get some good
games and some lousy ones. Any process that can produce a game like FTL
is fine with me.

[Paul Ney]

"Giftzwerg" <giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote on 04.02.2013 12:07 GMT the
message news:MPG.2b796e924...@news.giganews.com

> In article <kenasp$cqs$1...@py.eternal-september.org>,
Paul...@t-online.de says...
>
>> > I gotta say, I much prefer the traditional method, whereby someone
>> > shows me a product and I decide whether to buy it or not.
>>
>> Let me recall that even Columbus was begging at the Spanish Court...
>> As president Kennedy gave order to land on the Moon by the end of the
>> 60ies, the rockets, orbiters and landing modules still had to be
>> designed... But he learned that it was possible to achieve the goal.
>
> Ah. So you're suggesting that Arjuna approach the government for
> money?

In fact, not a suggestion in the very sense of the word. Aruna did not
ask "hi folks, where could I quickly find a few nuggets?" but proposed a
discussion of the funding problem. And there is a quite singular
example: a few years ago, a Hungarian ministry promoted Hussar Games'
1848 for educational purposes.

> Hey, these days, it's almost sure to work.

This *is* a suggestion... :-)

>> > I mean, not to impugn these New Wave methods of funding projects,
>> > but if I thought I could make a killing by building a gas station /
>> > convenience store at the corner of Dorset St. and Pond Rd., I
>> > wouldn't be standing at the corner wearing a sandwich board
>> > reading, "If you'd like to have a gas station here, put $25 in the
>> > hat and we'll see."
>>
>> If it works, why not? ;-)
>
> Then why are we having this thread?

A nice and sometimes hot thoughtful small talk...

>> > "What makes an assault weapon an assault weapon? Randomly selected
>> > cosmetic features that look scary to ignorant liberals, but have
>> > nothing material to do with the function of the firearm. If
>> > liberals had more sense, they would be embarrassed."
>> > - Senator Ted Cruz
>>
>> Is this from a classified Field Manual?
>
> It must be, since every numb fucking journalist in the world keeps
> bleating about "assault weapons" without being able to supply a
> definition of what an "assault weapon" is. Here's my definition:
>
> Assault Weapon (n) Conventional, ordinary, bog-standard semiautomatic
> rifle with detachable magazine blinged-out with all sorts of
> "military" gizmos that increase the lethality of the weapon not one
> whit, but delights leftists who see them as the low-hanging fruit on
> the way to a complete and utter shattering of 2nd Amendment rights.

Even Wiki has one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon (last
modified on 5 February 2013 at 00:29). And you may wish to turn over the
leaves of http://www.assaultweapon.info/ and find this:
| According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in
| the Stanford Law and Policy Review:
| Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the
| lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun
| publicists to expand the category of "assault rifles."

Regards, PY [Paul_Ney/at/t-online.de]

[Paul Ney]

<ade...@inbox.com> wrote on 04.02.2013 03:59 GMT the message
news:1631859444381642683.1...@news.aioe.org

> <mite...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, 3 February 2013 14:13:32 UTC+10, Paul Ney wrote:
>>> "Arjuna" wrote on 30.01.2013 23:08 GMT the

>> Anyway, as long as there are luxury car look-alikes that
>> even the major car manufacturers can do nothing about,
>> it might be a good way to get your game, or something that
>> resembles it, spread much further.
>

> That was my initial reaction as well.
>
> However, leaving aside the moral implications of what happens to the
> original developer, isn't outsourcing a net gain for wargamers as it
> means that low cost developers will be able to freely share, legally
> or illegally, the source code and development practices of a
> successful wargame developer?

Not necessarily "a net gain for wargamers" as it depends on the contract
(drawn by lawyers) between the parties. The original developer might opt
for a joint venture with a company in another country or just "hire" the
latter as a supply company (producing parts of the final product). And
the relationship between the respective countries is equally important.

Regards, PY [Paul_Ney/at/t-online.de]

[Arjuna]

Hi all,

Thanks for the responses.

Let me clarify a few things here. Firstly, we're open to any and all good suggestions as to how we can fund and market this game. But the bottom line is that we don't have the mon so we need to get the development funds from somewhere else.

Next, while I agree with Gifty's advice about the things a traditioonal publisher bring to the table I do not know of any publisher willing to put up the amount of money required for this type of game. Let's face it wargames are a niche product and you'd have to rocks in your head to take on the big risks involved. It's really only a very limited number of end users that want this product. The question is are there enough to make it viable. I don't know if this is the case.

Basically we need 5,000 sales at $100 each to break even or 8,333 at $60 each. I really doubt we could get the latter. We may have a shot at 5,000 but that is not assured. So going to a bank manager and putting these type of figures on the table is not going to impress or end up with bank finance. In any event they will want some form of security. I lost my house a long time ago. So there is none.

So what we need is a way to raise the $500K that does not involve going to a bank nor to a traditional publisher - unless you know of one that is not as risk averse as the ones I know.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 5 feb, 08:38, Arjuna <d...@panthergames.com> wrote:
>
> So what we need is a way to raise the $500K

... or a way to convince Arjuna that scaling back, abstraction and
design-for-effect are also valuable alternatives - especially when
you've only got $150k to play with. Yeah, right, as if that is ever
going to happen :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Pelle Nilsson]

Arjuna <da...@panthergames.com> writes:

> rocks in your head to take on the big risks involved. It's really only
> a very limited number of end users that want this product. The
> question is are there enough to make it viable. I don't know if this
> is the case.
>
> Basically we need 5,000 sales at $100 each to break even or 8,333 at
> $60 each. I really doubt we could get the latter. We may have a shot
> at 5,000 but that is not assured. So going to a bank manager and

The only future that seems possible for the real niche games is open
source, spreading development effort over more developers (and
companies). Sharing the engine code does not mean there would be no
opportunities for doing commercial games with it, and cost could be kept
keep down. You can always keep all art assets, oob data, and game-specific
code closed source.

Increasing the prices, that already seem high to many, is only going to
speed up the decline of players interested in these games, kickstarter
or not.

Eventually I think the best way it can end is like interactive fiction
with almost only free games and open source engines, but at least a very
active community of hobbyists that make great games (and considering how
much of some wargames are driven by user-created scenarios and mods it
might just work out ok). The only likely alternative I can imagine is no
new niche games at all.

--
/Pelle

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 5 feb, 11:01, Pelle Nilsson <krigss...@pelle-n.net> wrote:

> Arjuna <d...@panthergames.com> writes:
> > rocks in your head to take on the big risks involved. It's really only
> > a very limited number of end users that want this product. The
> > question is are there enough to make it viable. I don't know if this
> > is the case.
>
> > Basically we need 5,000 sales at $100 each to break even or 8,333 at
> > $60 each. I really doubt we could get the latter. We may have a shot
> > at 5,000 but that is not assured. So going to a bank manager and
>
> The only future that seems possible for the real niche games is open
> source, spreading development effort over more developers (and
> companies). Sharing the engine code does not mean there would be no
> opportunities for doing commercial games with it, and cost could be kept
> keep down. You can always keep all art assets, oob data, and game-specific
> code closed source.

I'd argue that this is pipe dream. The internet is littered by dead
open-source project that went nowhere. Oh, sure, there are a few
success stories (Vasal) but those are few and far between.

> Increasing the prices, that already seem high to many, is only
going to
> speed up the decline of players interested in these games, kickstarter
> or not.

Yup - in 2013 you're not competing with $50 <other type of games> but
with Triple-A $5 <other type of games>

> The only likely alternative I can imagine is no
> new niche games at all.

Here's an alternative :

Design a $40 game with all the basic functionality in there but
nothing more. Make it so that it becomes easy to sell 4 DLC's at $5
each in the next year. Make a version 2.0 for the upgrade price of
$20. Add some more DLC's. Make a Gold edition with all of the above +
a bonus DLC for the low price of $40. Drop the price to $19.99 at X-
Mas. Drop the price to $9.99 the next X-Mas

Rince and repeat.

Here's another one : get a job that pays the bills - for instance :
there's a chemical plant nearby that offers decent pay for people
willing to work 12-hour Saturday and Sunday night shifts. It's a lousy
job, but it leaves you free for 5 days a week to do what you like to
do : program a wargame, or train for a triathlon or whatever.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 5 feb, 11:26, <adel...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
> I am very curious. What is the usual number that a computer wargame can be
> expecte to sell?

5000 is a hit.

20000 is an enormously big hit

Couple of thousand is what decent games used to sell - I'm saying used
to because if the guys at Slitherine are to be believed the market is
changing fast with those middle-tier sales disappearing.

Incidentally, those numbers are in the same ballpark as board
(war)game sales which are less costly and time consuming to design,
but more costly to produce (print) which is also why my design efforts
are pure cardboard but with a possible digital conversion in mind.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Pelle Nilsson]

"eddys...@hotmail.com" <eddys...@hotmail.com> writes:

> I'd argue that this is pipe dream. The internet is littered by dead
> open-source project that went nowhere. Oh, sure, there are a few
> success stories (Vasal) but those are few and far between.

One or two successful ones could be enough. We don't have many failed
attempts either so far. Also not aiming too high will make it more
likely to work out, as you say.

> Design a $40 game with all the basic functionality in there but
> nothing more. Make it so that it becomes easy to sell 4 DLC's at $5
> each in the next year. Make a version 2.0 for the upgrade price of
> $20. Add some more DLC's. Make a Gold edition with all of the above +
> a bonus DLC for the low price of $40. Drop the price to $19.99 at X-
> Mas. Drop the price to $9.99 the next X-Mas

This sounds like the current reality for adventure games. They have had
some successful kickstarters and subscription games (buy cheap episodes,
not complete full-length games at once, much like what you
suggest). Also that does not rule out in any way using an open source
engine shared by developers instead of everyone wasting time on
re-inventing the wheel. Even Apple and Google somehow get along sharing
the same open source browser engine (just one of many examples from the
non-game world).

> Here's another one : get a job that pays the bills - for instance :
> there's a chemical plant nearby that offers decent pay for people
> willing to work 12-hour Saturday and Sunday night shifts. It's a lousy
> job, but it leaves you free for 5 days a week to do what you like to
> do : program a wargame, or train for a triathlon or whatever.

Or accept that it will take 3 years to make a scoped-down engine in your
free time, instead of the 3 months a full-time pro could have made it
in.

Don't think the actual coding will be the big problem, but convincing
the modders and hobby scenario designers (and hopefully some commercial
developer) to use the engine. No use having a working engine if there is
no content for it.

--
/Pelle

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 5 feb, 12:12, Pelle Nilsson <krigss...@pelle-n.net> wrote:

> "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > I'd argue that this is pipe dream. The internet is littered by dead
> > open-source project that went nowhere. Oh, sure, there are a few
> > success stories (Vasal) but those are few and far between.
>
> One or two successful ones could be enough. We don't have many failed
> attempts either so far.

Ahum, ever taken a look at one of those open-source collective
websites like SourceForge and done a search for "wargame" - enjoy the
long list of dead projects.

> > Design a $40 game with all the basic functionality in there but
> > nothing more. Make it so that it becomes easy to sell 4 DLC's at $5
> > each in the next year. Make a version 2.0 for the upgrade price of
> > $20. Add some more DLC's. Make a Gold edition with all of the above +
> > a bonus DLC for the low price of $40. Drop the price to $19.99 at X-
> > Mas. Drop the price to $9.99 the next X-Mas
>
> This sounds like the current reality for adventure games. They have had
> some successful kickstarters and subscription games (buy cheap episodes,
> not complete full-length games at once, much like what you
> suggest).

Exactly. And it works.

> Also that does not rule out in any way using an open source
> engine shared by developers instead of everyone wasting time on
> re-inventing the wheel.

You seem to be very hung-up on this open source notion. An open engine
is a different beast than open source. An open engine is a must-have,
but open-source is a pitfall.

> > Here's another one : get a job that pays the bills - for instance :
> > there's a chemical plant nearby that offers decent pay for people
> > willing to work 12-hour Saturday and Sunday night shifts. It's a lousy
> > job, but it leaves you free for 5 days a week to do what you like to
> > do : program a wargame, or train for a triathlon or whatever.
>
> Or accept that it will take 3 years to make a scoped-down engine in your
> free time, instead of the 3 months a full-time pro could have made it
> in.

... or the 3 years it'll take Arjuna for what he considers a "scoped-
down" engine :)

> Don't think the actual coding will be the big problem, but convincing
> the modders and hobby scenario designers (and hopefully some commercial
> developer) to use the engine. No use having a working engine if there is
> no content for it.

This is a long shot - at best - as can be demonstrated by the lack of
these very things for the grand majority of wargames which may not be
open-source but are open in the sense that they allow map/scenario
creation.

It's just not happening because those with the talent & time to do so
are already spread out over a couple of dozen existing games. It
worked when TOAW came on the market because this game was
revolutionary, but these days I can't see any game making the impact
TOAW had when it burst on the scene.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Pelle Nilsson]

"eddys...@hotmail.com" <eddys...@hotmail.com> writes:

> The internet is littered by dead open-source project that went
> nowhere. Oh, sure, there are a few success stories (Vasal) but those
> are few and far between.

I have been gathering some links to open source wargame engines/games
(successful or not):

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/891744/open-source-wargames

Not quite replacements for the more advanced closed-source engines yet.

--
/Pelle

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 5 feb, 13:04, Pelle Nilsson <krigss...@pelle-n.net> wrote:

> "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > The internet is littered by dead open-source project that went
> > nowhere. Oh, sure, there are a few success stories (Vasal) but those
> > are few and far between.
>
> I have been gathering some links to open source wargame engines/games
> (successful or not):
>
> http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/891744/open-source-wargames

Interesting - but you only list 4 projects in more or less finished
state - done in the past 2 decades. Want me to list a hundred which
failed miserably ? I once went through the entire list on SourceForge
and it convinced me once and for all that an open source project which
succeeds is like a winning lotery ticket. And this is my point : you
can't base a business decision on such lousy odds.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Pelle Nilsson]

"eddys...@hotmail.com" <eddys...@hotmail.com> writes:

> You seem to be very hung-up on this open source notion. An open engine
> is a different beast than open source. An open engine is a must-have,
> but open-source is a pitfall.

Where is the pitfall? I can see a risk of the source being released and
nothing happens with it (no patches sent in, no one even bothers to use
it, it just fades away) but what is the real risk? Someone looking at it
to steal or your super-secret algorithms (in a scaled-down scope
wargame? what?)?

--
/Pelle

[Pelle Nilsson]

"eddys...@hotmail.com" <eddys...@hotmail.com> writes:

> Interesting - but you only list 4 projects in more or less finished
> state - done in the past 2 decades. Want me to list a hundred which
> failed miserably ?

No, what do I need them for (except for possibly reusing some of their
code to make a new engine)? Maybe starting a lot of projects and hoping
a few will survive is even a good strategy?

--
/Pelle

[Giftzwerg]

In article <kepskk$b8a$1...@py.eternal-september.org>, Paul...@t-online.de
says...

> >> > "What makes an assault weapon an assault weapon? Randomly selected
> >> > cosmetic features that look scary to ignorant liberals, but have
> >> > nothing material to do with the function of the firearm. If
> >> > liberals had more sense, they would be embarrassed."
> >> > - Senator Ted Cruz
> >>
> >> Is this from a classified Field Manual?
> >
> > It must be, since every numb fucking journalist in the world keeps
> > bleating about "assault weapons" without being able to supply a
> > definition of what an "assault weapon" is. Here's my definition:
> >
> > Assault Weapon (n) Conventional, ordinary, bog-standard semiautomatic
> > rifle with detachable magazine blinged-out with all sorts of
> > "military" gizmos that increase the lethality of the weapon not one
> > whit, but delights leftists who see them as the low-hanging fruit on
> > the way to a complete and utter shattering of 2nd Amendment rights.
>
> Even Wiki has one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon (last
> modified on 5 February 2013 at 00:29). And you may wish to turn over the
> leaves of http://www.assaultweapon.info/ and find this:
> | According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in
> | the Stanford Law and Policy Review:
> | Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the
> | lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun
> | publicists to expand the category of "assault rifles."

Well, exactly. Leftist gun-banning control-freaks cooked up this
nonsense term because they found - to their horror, I suppose - that
conventional semi-automatic firearms have been the weapon of choice for
gun owners worldwide since the first double-action revolvers appeared in
the 1850s.

Senator Cruz is entirely correct in his observation that the "features"
that differentiate an "assault weapon" from a bog standard semiautomatic
rifle are cosmetic only; if you took one of the "assault weapons"
Senator Feinstein's bill seeks to ban, and removed all the cosmetic
enhancements ("barrel shroud ... IE, a *stock*...) that make it an
"assault weapon," it would not be one iota less lethal.

--
Giftzwerg
***

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 5 feb, 13:25, Pelle Nilsson <krigss...@pelle-n.net> wrote:

Where's the reward ?

And what's your best case scenario ? That someone takes your engine,
builds upon it and releases a commercial game based on it in direct
competition with you, but without the financial burden of the months/
years of development time you invested ?

Are you seriously suggesting this is a good commercial move ?

Get this : there's ZERO commercial incentive for releasing your source
code, except for a product that has gone through its life-cycle and by
releasing the source you might get some good pr - cfr the Doom engine
etc.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Holdit]

In article <aed0abec-7583-42a8...@googlegroups.com>,
da...@panthergames.com says...
> Thanks for the advice. Despite what Eddy tells you ,) this isn't exactly new territoy for me.
> After all I designed the original Trial of Strength (TOS)boardgame and it's full of abstraction.
> Our company motto is "when realism counts". So when it doesn't count I am all for a good abstraction.
> The issue is all about focus.
>

I've always thought that the abstraction vs. realism issue is a bit of a
false dichotomy. Why can't abstraction produce realistic results? I'd
rather judge the realism by what comes out - not what goes in.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't doesn't the most detailed game
abtraction somewhere? In which case the question isn't really whether to
start abstracting, but where to start abstracting.

Holdit


--
In economy no frills; in business class it'll all be free - including
the blowjobs.
- Michael O'Leary

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 5 feb, 13:45, Holdit <holditREM...@indigoTHE.ieCAPS> wrote:
> In article <aed0abec-7583-42a8...@googlegroups.com>,
> d...@panthergames.com says...

>
> > Thanks for the advice. Despite what Eddy tells you ,) this isn't exactly new territoy for me.
> > After all I designed the original Trial of Strength (TOS)boardgame and it's full of abstraction.
> > Our company motto is "when realism counts". So when it doesn't count I am all for a good abstraction.
> > The issue is all about focus.
>
> I've always thought that the abstraction vs. realism issue is a bit of a
> false dichotomy. Why can't abstraction produce realistic results? I'd
> rather judge the realism by what comes out - not what goes in.

Aha, another design-for-effect fan.

Well, by and large pc wargame designers don't work that way - they
just throw another set of data in there for the user to manage.

Boardgame designers are - by the nature and limitations posed on them
by paper - forced to abstract and design for effect. I would almost
call it a Darwinian consequence that the end result is that innovation
and new ways of doing things are much more prevalent in the boardgame
world.

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't doesn't the most detailed game
> abtraction somewhere? In which case the question isn't really whether to
> start abstracting, but where to start abstracting.

CNA had spaghetti rules for the Italians, but we've come a long way
since then. I think the pc wargame world will need a comparable shock
as that which nearly killed boardgames in the eighties before they
start to take abstraction seriously.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Carl Alex Friis Nielsen]

On 05-02-2013 13:42, eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Get this : there's ZERO commercial incentive for releasing your source
> code, except for a product that has gone through its life-cycle and by
> releasing the source you might get some good pr - cfr the Doom engine
> etc.

That depends on what your business model is.

There are plenty of successful companies making good money on selling
services connected with their product rather than the product itself.
And if they can create a viable community around the product they will
get loads of bugfixes and product improvements for free.

[Pelle Nilsson]

"eddys...@hotmail.com" <eddys...@hotmail.com> writes:

> And what's your best case scenario ? That someone takes your engine,
> builds upon it and releases a commercial game based on it in direct
> competition with you, but without the financial burden of the months/
> years of development time you invested ?

For something started as a hobby in my free time, yes, that would be a
very good scenario. If a company starts using it at least someone with
more time to work on it would have a reason to contribute back code.

If a company released an engine I would assume that they would still
keep important parts closed source to avoid that scenario, and/or only
give away code using some license like the GPL.

> Get this : there's ZERO commercial incentive for releasing your source
> code, except for a product that has gone through its life-cycle and by
> releasing the source you might get some good pr - cfr the Doom engine
> etc.

There are companies that frequently release new code as open source, or
even base the entire business on giving away all or most of their source
code, and some have been making in the millions or billions of dollars
from it. Also a game engine is not a game. It is not giving away
everything you have for free. If you even get some pr it is probably a
bigger win than any possible loss.

Not that I think it is a likely scenario that a company would give away
an engine (new or old) as open source. Not sure how you/we got into that
part of the question. I was thinking of ways to make niche games
available at all in the future, given how things are going now. I was
not thinking about business models to magically make big money from a
market that almost do not exist and is not exactly growing.

--
/Pelle

[Pelle Nilsson]

Carl Alex Friis Nielsen <ca...@mail.dk> writes:

> And if they can create a viable community around the product they will
> get loads of bugfixes and product improvements for free.

I think this is the possible win that could decrease costs for a wargame
company to make it possible to make the games that would not be possible
to fund if all development has to be paid for directly. How big that
chance is we will probably never know, because I doubt anyone will dare
attempt it.

--
/Pelle

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 5 feb, 16:32, Carl Alex Friis Nielsen <c...@mail.dk> wrote:

> On 05-02-2013 13:42, eddyster...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Get this : there's ZERO commercial incentive for releasing your source
> > code, except for a product that has gone through its life-cycle and by
> > releasing the source you might get some good pr - cfr the Doom engine
> > etc.
>
> That depends on what your business model is.

It usually involves making money.

> There are plenty of successful companies making good money on selling
> services connected with their product rather than the product itself.

Yup - Including M$, Oracle, SAP and IBM - but those sell services to
companies, but care to explain how this would work for a game
developer ?

> And if they can create a viable community around the product they will
> get loads of bugfixes and product improvements for free.

Even not going into the nightmare of version controll here's a reality
check : in pc wargaming in 2013 it's almost impossible to get a viable
community around your game even if you give them all the tools to make
maps and scenarios.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 5 feb, 17:04, Pelle Nilsson <krigss...@pelle-n.net> wrote:

> "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > And what's your best case scenario ? That someone takes your engine,
> > builds upon it and releases a commercial game based on it in direct
> > competition with you, but without the financial burden of the months/
> > years of development time you invested ?
>
> For something started as a hobby in my free time, yes, that would be a
> very good scenario.

<sigh> and here's me thinking this whole discussion was about a
possible future business model for Panther Games

> If a company released an engine I would assume that they would still
> keep important parts closed source to avoid that scenario, and/or only
> give away code using some license like the GPL.

<re-sigh> and how is this different from the current model where games
and engines get licenced ? Happens all the time - you don't need open-
source for that.

> > Get this : there's ZERO commercial incentive for releasing your source
> > code, except for a product that has gone through its life-cycle and by
> > releasing the source you might get some good pr - cfr the Doom engine
> > etc.
>
> There are companies that frequently release new code as open source, or
> even base the entire business on giving away all or most of their source
> code, and some have been making in the millions or billions of dollars
> from it.

Any game companies among them ? Thought so.

> Not that I think it is a likely scenario that a company would give away
> an engine (new or old) as open source.

id-Software released the Doom source code and all the goodies (except
graphics) in the late nineties - this turned out to be great
publictity for them, but no direct monetary gain. They later repeated
that trick with Doom 3.

> I was thinking of ways to make niche games
> available at all in the future, given how things are going now. I was
> not thinking about business models to magically make big money from a
> market that almost do not exist and is not exactly growing.

Nobody said big money, but all the talk in this thread was about
making wargame development a viable professional business. It was you
brought up open source etc. See, I'm all in favour of open source, I
even released a freeware Clipper library back in the nineties that was
pretty widely used and got me invited to a conference but as a wargame
business plan this is not something you can present to your bank
manager.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[kev0...@gmail.com]

> > finance. In any event they will want some form of security. I lost my
>
> > house a long time ago. So there is none.

Gutted to read that, I hope it wasn't over a game venture.

[Arjuna]

'Fraid so. The good thing is that you can't lose the same house twice. So I can't be tempted to put it up for security this time around. ;)

[kev0...@gmail.com]

> > Gutted to read that, I hope it wasn't over a game venture.
>
>
>
> 'Fraid so. The good thing is that you can't lose the same house twice. So I can't be tempted to put it up for security this time around. ;)

I really hate hearing that. I've heard a few nasty stories of developers getting into serious financial trouble, losing homes, etc. down the years and what sickens me is people coming to so much grief for following their passion and giving us consuming gamers their fix.

So where are we at with this discussion. Is Kickstarter with a US partner ruled out?

[Pelle Nilsson]

"eddys...@hotmail.com" <eddys...@hotmail.com> writes:

> <sigh> and here's me thinking this whole discussion was about a
> possible future business model for Panther Games

...

> Nobody said big money, but all the talk in this thread was about
> making wargame development a viable professional business.

No, it was about making wargame development viable. It seemed like the
numbers did not add up for doing everything in-house (as evident also by
so many wargame engines being very old).

Many companies, even game companies, open source libraries and
frameworks they need for their business, without giving away everything,
to hopefully not have to do all the work on their own. It is obviously
seen as a valid option to cut costs even if it means giving valuable
work for free to competitors. It is not only old code no longer used,
like the Doom example.

Battle of Wesnoth has sold "10000-50000" copies on Android, and it has
5244 ratings on iOS (not sure how to see how many bought it?) Not bad
for an open source game (the entire game, not just the engine) costing
$4.

No one is likely to even try, so we will never know if it would work out
or not in the context of niche wargames. No point in guessing or
pretending to know how it would work out.

--
/Pelle

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 6 feb, 15:36, Pelle Nilsson <krigss...@pelle-n.net> wrote:

> "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > <sigh> and here's me thinking this whole discussion was about a
> > possible future business model for Panther Games
> ...
> > Nobody said big money, but all the talk in this thread was about
> > making wargame development a viable professional business.
>
> No, it was about making wargame development viable. It seemed like the
> numbers did not add up for doing everything in-house

... with as the primary reason a reluctance by the designers to scale
their designs back to where the numbers do add up again.

For those interested in having a look at the original Trial of
Strength boardgame

The rules have been put online here :

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?gr6km0h7d8r2jyp

Especially the first paragraph of the designer's notes read like they
could have been written today about pc wargaming

The funniest errata ever :

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/1048973/trial-of-strength

The Vassal file :

http://www.mediafire.com/?y5jxx43w4chk5c5

The Poland/Balkan variant + some more errata

http://www.mediafire.com/?ugorojnrgi1

Enjoy,

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Arjuna]

Eddy,

I appreciate your passionate debate for a shift to light weight wargaming as the salve for the industry and you may well be right. But that is not what this thread is about. It is about how to fund the development of a computer version of TOS based on mods to our existing Cmd Ops engine.

I am not interested in designing a new engine. I do not want to design light weight wargames. If it's a choice between doing that and getting a regular day job I think I will follow your lead and opt for the regular day job.

Let's be brutally honest here. The commercial wargames market is an extremely high risk business. You would only entertain such risks if you are passionate about designing the type of product you like. I just don't fancy taking these risks for something I am not passionate about.

So please Eddy, stop beating a dead horse on this.

[Arjuna]

On Thursday, February 7, 2013 1:36:20 AM UTC+11, Pelle Nilsson wrote:

Pelle,

I appreciate your thoughts on open source. However, there is another factor as to why I won't go that route. I still hold out hope that one day we will develop a military version as a decision support tool. For security reasons we could not make this source code publically available. So an open source route would kill off this possibility.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <89e2614c-45ad-4700...@googlegroups.com>,
da...@panthergames.com says...

> I appreciate your passionate debate for a shift to light weight
wargaming as the salve for the industry and you may well be right. But
that is not what this thread is about. It is about how to fund the
development of a computer version of TOS based on mods to our existing
Cmd Ops engine.

***

And this is exactly the sort of thing I've been looking for since ...
forever.

> I am not interested in designing a new engine. I do not want to design
light weight wargames. If it's a choice between doing that and getting a
regular day job I think I will follow your lead and opt for the regular
day job.

***

<applause>

By all means you should keep doing what you've proved so good at, over
and over. Let some "light weight" designer come up with boardgamey
dreck like the iPad BATTLE OF THE BULGE; silly system, compromised in
every way, crap AI, and generally playing like a game that I got on
paper inside some boardgaming magazine like, 200 years ago

With respect to the eastern front, we always get a stone monster like
WITE - a crawling, paper-based horror made barely playable by a
computer, or some abstracted abortion where counters are tossed into
areas and throw dice at each other until some bogus result is achieved.

TRIAL OF STRENGTH looks to hit the sweet spot; detail at the lower
level, command at a manageable level. I bid $250 for my copy.

[Dan]

Summing up: The computer game will need to be funded with a ski mask and pistol. I elect Gifty as your US partner. :)

Arjuna - there might be a market for a reprint of ToS if you brush up the graphics and streamline some rules for the modern player. It is still lauded for simulating the East Front.. You also have some other interesting games that could make for good reprints.

[dougb]

Pretty much te way I read it unfortunately.

Love to see a TOS reprint.

Doug

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 6 feb, 23:59, Arjuna <d...@panthergames.com> wrote:
>
> I appreciate your passionate debate for a shift to light weight wargaming as the salve for the industry and you may well be right. But that is not what this thread is about. It is about how to fund the development of a computer version of TOS based on mods to our existing Cmd Ops engine.

Wanting to design a computer version of ToS but wanting 500K to do so
is a no-go right from the start. No matter what alternative funding
method you are considering

> So please Eddy, stop beating a dead horse on this.

Fair enough - as it happens I'm right in the middle of a private email
exchange with another designer who after running into the wall I
predicted would be there is now much more receptive. Watch out for
that wall.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[dougb]

On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 6:37:56 PM UTC-5, Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article <89e2614c-45ad-4700...@googlegroups.com>, da...@panthergames.com says... > I appreciate your passionate debate for a shift to light weight wargaming as the salve for the industry and you may well be right. But that is not what this thread is about. It is about how to fund the development of a computer version of TOS based on mods to our existing Cmd Ops engine. *** And this is exactly the sort of thing I've been looking for since ... forever. > I am not interested in designing a new engine. I do not want to design light weight wargames. If it's a choice between doing that and getting a regular day job I think I will follow your lead and opt for the regular day job. *** <applause> By all means you should keep doing what you've proved so good at, over and over. Let some "light weight" designer come up with boardgamey dreck like the iPad BATTLE OF THE BULGE; silly system, compromised in every way, crap AI, and generally playing like a game that I got on paper inside some boardgaming magazine like, 200 years ago With respect to the eastern front, we always get a stone monster like WITE - a crawling, paper-based horror made barely playable by a computer, or some abstracted abortion where counters are tossed into areas and throw dice at each other until some bogus result is achieved. TRIAL OF STRENGTH looks to hit the sweet spot; detail at the lower level, command at a manageable level. I bid $250 for my copy. -- Giftzwerg *** "What makes an assault weapon an assault weapon? Randomly selected cosmetic features that look scary to ignorant liberals, but have nothing material to do with the function of the firearm. If liberals had more sense, they would be embarrassed." - Senator Ted Cruz

Unfortunately unless Dave finds a magic pot of $ what he's indicating is that it does not appear to be financially feasible to develop our dream East Front Game. So sticking to his guns essentially means no game in the forseeable future if ever. I think he has every right to decide that but I'm not entirely sure what you're celebrating.

And yes WITE is a horror, and despite or because of all that bloody spreadsheet detail not even a very good historical simulation.

I think that there just might not be a market to support the types of war games that truly leverage the capabilities of the computer. That is unfortunate.

Doug

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 7 feb, 15:44, dougb <douglasbrun...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> I think that there just might not be a market to support the types of war games that truly leverage the capabilities of the computer.  That is unfortunate.

If you've seen that video interview with Joel Billings I linked to in
here a couple of days ago it seems that our understanding of
leveraging the capabilities of the computer clashes with that of both
designers and what the market demands.

I wonder how long it'll take before the market is just either highly
detailed spreadsheet games or beer & pretzel stuff, with the middle-
tier complexity games totally gone. I need to run this by a couple
more industry insiders, but the signs are there.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <3c40badc-4a65-4465...@googlegroups.com>,
douglas...@rogers.com says...

> I think that there just might not be a market to support the types of
war games that truly leverage the capabilities of the computer. That is
unfortunate.

***

And it's only wargames. Other genres leapt at the computer and now are
fabulously sophisticated.

I recall playing an NFL football boardgame back in the 1970s. It was
really fun; you drew a deck of plays from the central store, based on
what direction you wanted your club to take (passing game, running game,
balanced, etc...). Then you gamed out the quarters; football, due to
its' turn-based roots, is ideal for a boardgame.

But that looks laughable nowadays, when there are dozens of football
console games that fully leverage a computer. How you can not only call
the play, you can run with the ball.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 7 feb, 09:10, "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Watch out for that wall.

Another data point to consider :

Here's the European Court Ruling regarding the re-sale of digital
goods :

"An author of software cannot oppose the resale of his ‘used’ licences
allowing the use of his programs downloaded from the internet
The exclusive right of distribution of a copy of a computer program
covered by such a licence is exhausted on its first sale"

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-07/cp120094en.pdf

And here's Iain McNeil's reaction to it :

"Allowing the resale of physical games is not great for the games
industry but allowing the resale of digital copies will be
disasterous. There is no wear and tear, no desire to own a pristine
copy. There is no advantage at all to buying a new game digital than a
used digital game. Apart from losing the revenue of new sales, the
developer also has to deal with support for a customer who never
bought the game from them, provide on going servers for players who
never paid them. If this comes in to force it is going to completely
change the structure of how players are charged. The model of buying a
game once will be dead. You'll end up having to pay per play,
subscription or the freemium model of upgrading with cash to keep up.
I for one hate this idea and want things to remain as they are and
wish people would look at the big picture. I want to buy a game and be
able to play it as often as a I want forever. I dont care about
selling it on."

http://www.wargamer.com/forums/goto.asp?post=632640

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[mite...@hotmail.com]

On Tuesday, 5 February 2013 17:38:02 UTC+10, Arjuna wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the responses.
>
>
>
> Let me clarify a few things here. Firstly, we're open to any and all good suggestions as to how we can fund and market this game. But the bottom line is that we don't have the mon so we need to get the development funds from somewhere else.
>
>
>
> Next, while I agree with Gifty's advice about the things a traditioonal publisher bring to the table I do not know of any publisher willing to put up the amount of money required for this type of game. Let's face it wargames are a niche product and you'd have to rocks in your head to take on the big risks involved. It's really only a very limited number of end users that want this product. The question is are there enough to make it viable. I don't know if this is the case.
>
>
>
> Basically we need 5,000 sales at $100 each to break even or 8,333 at $60 each. I really doubt we could get the latter. We may have a shot at 5,000 but that is not assured. So going to a bank manager and putting these type of figures on the table is not going to impress or end up with bank finance. In any event they will want some form of security. I lost my house a long time ago. So there is none.
>
>
>
> So what we need is a way to raise the $500K that does not involve going to a bank nor to a traditional publisher - unless you know of one that is not as risk averse as the ones I know.

Ok, I'd buy two at $100 each (but I won't start saving for that yet).

I've got a great suggestion (for a "historical" group). For my payment, I
think I should be in the game as a fantasy unit which can be called upon
as a form of surrender, except that my unit, named after me, of course,
has twice the hit power of the most powerful unit I'm opposing (while facing a disasterous situation on the map) (forget I said that).

[dougb]

To be fair though I can't think of a single decent NFL management game and we're pretty much down to a single nfl series on consoles with no live action option on the PC.

I'm not convinced that to produce a good Wargame you need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Some of the board game conventions (counters, hex based movement, abstracted unit stengths) work quite well when transferred to the PC. I love command ops but if I can't get that translated to the larger scale I'll happily settle for a good PC adaptation of Trial of Stength, Russian Front, The Russian Campaign etc. I don't see any of those in the works either, however. Good thing I enjoy vassal.

Doug

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 8 feb, 01:30, dougb <douglasbrun...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not convinced that to produce a good Wargame you need to throw the baby out with the bath water.  Some of the board game conventions (counters, hex based movement, abstracted unit stengths) work quite well when transferred to the PC.

Same for blocks : you know something is there, but you don't know the
strength of it is pretty much spot-on for strategic level WWII games.

Also things like point-to-point movement which poses real-life
restrictions on how units can move from one place to another or even
the exotic stuff like diceless combat (Guns of Gettysburg Kickstarter
starts today - Europeans can order through Histogames and avoid
Customs and outrageous shipping charges) .

Too many people still think board wargaming is only about hexes,
counters and crt's. That or Axis & Allies clones.

> I love command ops but if I can't get that translated to the larger scale I'll happily settle for a good PC adaptation of Trial of Stength, Russian Front, The Russian Campaign etc.  I don't see any of those in the works either, however.

Me neither. SPI managed to first challenge and then overtake AH by
designing the games their customers wanted, but this crazy practice of
developing for your market is not the way pc wargame developers seem
to work - they'd rather develop the games they like. I know how this
is going to end and it's not well.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Arjuna]

Eddy,

I find it amazing that you think we wargame developers have an obligation to do anything. Last I checked there was no court order out on me. As far as I am concerned I and all the other wargame developers out there still exercise free will. Yes we could choose to pander to the desires of others and if our livlihoods depend on it then we probably would.

The fact is that this industry is no longer able to support our companies full time development. Yes we could change what we do and churn out the light weaight games that you so reckon the market wants. But as I explaned earlier I don't want to go that way. It's a novel concept but I am exercising my democratic and human right to choose my own destiny.

Now I wish you would either put up or shut up on this issue. Are you going to put your house on the line and start funding your own development of these light weight products. If not then can you please desist or at least take this conversation into another thread so we can focus on what was originally intended for this thread. Please Eddy!

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 8 feb, 08:35, Arjuna <d...@panthergames.com> wrote:
> Yes we could change what we do and churn out the light weaight games that you so reckon the market wants.

The market wants them, not me. Don't confuse my taste with what I
perceive the market is going for.

I want middle-tier games.

PC wargame developers aren't making them anymore. Board wargame
developers do. They get my money. FAB Bulge, C&C Napoleonics, Strike
of the Eagle, A Few Acres of Snow, ....

> But as I explaned earlier I don't want to go that way.

I got that the first time.

> It's a novel concept but I am exercising my democratic and human right to choose my own destiny.

Fair enough - and I'm exercising my democratic right to tell all
developers, not just you, they either approach this as a job or as a
hobby. If it's a hobby, you can do whatever you want , if it's a job
you need to listen to the market. You asked for funding advice so I
mistakenly took it to mean you approached this as a job.

Signing out of this thread.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <cd2f7cda-d24b-48c4-bfe9-83b0cf72324c@
14g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> Too many people still think board wargaming is only about hexes,
> counters and crt's. That or Axis & Allies clones.

But some of them (like me...) think that replacing hexes, counters, and
CRTs with "areas," "chits," and "card-playing" *isn't good enough*.

We want sometime completely different. We want all of this fired into
the trash can and new games built that are computer games from the
ground up, untainted by the compromises needed to put paper into a
cardboard box and ship it out via snail-mail.

> Me neither. SPI managed to first challenge and then overtake AH by
> designing the games their customers wanted, but this crazy practice of
> developing for your market is not the way pc wargame developers seem
> to work - they'd rather develop the games they like. I know how this
> is going to end and it's not well.

Nonsense. The best and brightest design visionaries are those who
transcend "their market" and give their customers something *they didn't
know they wanted until a genius designer showed it to them*.

I didn't know I wanted DOOM until I saw it. I didn't know I wanted an
iPad until I saw it. I didn't know I wanted a Walkman until I saw it.

And that applies here. I don't want a "better" gamey-game boardgame,
replete with "modern" "innovations" that reduce reality to turning a
card, or picking a chit, or standing on my head in a closet until the
opponent shouts, "SIMON SEZ OLLY-OLLY-IN-COME-FREE!"

I want a computer game. Which Mr. O'Connor has given me several times,
and which he appears to want to deliver another of.

Please don't talk him into building Yet Another Boardgame Simulator.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 8 feb, 08:51, "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Signing out of this thread.

Dave, I'm sorry for being so cranky this morning - got up at 4 and
left at 5 AM for a meeting in Germany, only to be texted it was
cancelled when almost halfway there.

New personal rule : never post when in a bad mood

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Holdit]

In article <38c799ab-9d81-4b32-87c7-10b5baedcc02
@g8g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> On 8 feb, 08:51, "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Signing out of this thread.
>
> Dave, I'm sorry for being so cranky this morning - got up at 4 and
> left at 5 AM for a meeting in Germany, only to be texted it was
> cancelled when almost halfway there.
>

TGIF Eddy...

Holdit



--
In economy no frills; in business class it'll all be free - including the blowjobs.
- Michael O'Leary

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 8 feb, 11:49, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I didn't know I wanted DOOM until I saw it.

Castle Wittgenstein with better graphics. Not the first FPS by far,
just better implemented

> I didn't know I wanted an
> iPad until I saw it.

Not the first tablet by far, just better implemented.

> I didn't know I wanted a Walkman until I saw it.

Even in this case it was not the first portable music device - Philips
had one in the sixties. Sony just did a better job implementing the
same idea making it cheaper & better looking.

I think I see a pattern here :)

> And that applies here.  I don't want a "better" gamey-game boardgame,
> replete with "modern" "innovations" that reduce reality to turning a
> card, or picking a chit, or standing on my head in a closet until the
> opponent shouts, "SIMON SEZ OLLY-OLLY-IN-COME-FREE!"

And nobody says you can't have that, but the reality is that such
games are few and far between. Like 1 a year. That's maybe fine for
you, but I want more.

> Please don't talk him into building Yet Another Boardgame Simulator.

There's zero chance of that - but there are other developers reading
my drivel in here :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <fe97f481-1027-4ef1...@googlegroups.com>,
da...@panthergames.com says...

> I find it amazing that you think we wargame developers have an
obligation to do anything. Last I checked there was no court order out
on me. As far as I am concerned I and all the other wargame developers
out there still exercise free will. Yes we could choose to pander to the
desires of others and if our livlihoods depend on it then we probably
would.

***

You go, girl. It amazes me that we're even having this thread, given
that the title of the group is, "comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical"
and not, "comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.boardgame-simulators."

> The fact is that this industry is no longer able to support our
companies full time development. Yes we could change what we do and
churn out the light weaight games that you so reckon the market wants.
But as I explaned earlier I don't want to go that way. It's a novel
concept but I am exercising my democratic and human right to choose my
own destiny.

***

Perhaps you should establish the Panther "Crapware Division," and crank
out some cookie-cutter, HPS-themed conventional games. Nice,
lightweight stuff, chock-full of hexes and "4-4-7" infantry battalions.

> Now I wish you would either put up or shut up on this issue. Are you
going to put your house on the line and start funding your own
development of these light weight products. If not then can you please
desist or at least take this conversation into another thread so we can
focus on what was originally intended for this thread. Please Eddy!

***

Yeah, I'm not getting this either. How a thread gets from, "how to get
funding for development of a game I've been wanting all my life," to,
"how to convince one of the few guys in the world who actually wants to
build real computer games that he should build boardgame simulators" is
simply beyond my comprehension.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 8 feb, 12:58, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, I'm not getting this either.  How a thread gets from, "how to get
> funding for development of a game I've been wanting all my life," to,
> "how to convince one of the few guys in the world who actually wants to
> build real computer games that he should build boardgame simulators" is
> simply beyond my comprehension.

Requirement to build : 500K
Likely revenue : 2-3000 times $50 - give or take 150K

I don't know how it works in your company but over here the options
then are :

1) Bury the project
2) Scale the project down

So, let’s recap what I said and note it was nothing like “build a
boardgame simulator”

Copy & paste :

“I know you won't listen ...but you have to scale it back to where
you're totally uncomfortable with it :)

Team play : chuck it out

Granularity : 20 km from data-point to data-point and corps/army
sized
units

Supply : make it so rudimentary / design for effect you can code it
in
a day

etc. “

-

Got a 3rd option ?

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <ec2c1568-4fbd-4715-9256-
fbb558...@u21g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...

> >ï¿œI didn't know I wanted an

> > iPad until I saw it.
>
> Not the first tablet by far, just better implemented.

Exactly wrong. The iPad didn't "better implement" the features of the
tablets that had come before - the designers *threw all that shit out*.
Their vision was a tablet from the ground up. Something that wasn't a
"flat PC you can carry," but an *iPad*. Something that didn't exist
until Mr. Jobs et al had the vision.

I mean, come now, it's disingenuous in the extreme to call the iPad,
"just a better implemented tablet." It was a fundamentally new thing,
and that's why it took off like a rocket while *every* other tablet
disappeared without a ripple.

> I think I see a pattern here :)

You do. I'm not talking about the first one to build <thing>, I'm
talking about the first one to get <thing> *right*.

Look at the Model T Ford. There had been automobiles before, sure, but
the Model T was the first one that *got it right*. It was mass
produced, and could be sold cheaply to the middle class. It was
designed to operate in a reality which was largely unpaved roads. It
ran on a variety of fuels in the days when the nearest gas station might
be in another county. It was simple and robust and reliable.

> > And that applies here. ï¿œI don't want a "better" gamey-game boardgame,

> > replete with "modern" "innovations" that reduce reality to turning a
> > card, or picking a chit, or standing on my head in a closet until the
> > opponent shouts, "SIMON SEZ OLLY-OLLY-IN-COME-FREE!"
>
> And nobody says you can't have that, but the reality is that such
> games are few and far between. Like 1 a year. That's maybe fine for
> you, but I want more.

Well, HPS already releases a shit-ton of games I don't buy, so I'm
familiar with the "wait for something good" approach.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <5a076b0c-955b-4c57-a1ff-fccf94425962
@j9g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> Got a 3rd option ?

Get more people to buy it?

[Holdit]

In article <5a076b0c-955b-4c57-a1ff-fccf94425962
@j9g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> On 8 feb, 12:58, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I'm not getting this either.  How a thread gets from, "how to get
> > funding for development of a game I've been wanting all my life," to,
> > "how to convince one of the few guys in the world who actually wants to
> > build real computer games that he should build boardgame simulators" is
> > simply beyond my comprehension.
>
> Requirement to build : 500K
> Likely revenue : 2-3000 times $50 - give or take 150K
>
> I don't know how it works in your company but over here the options
> then are :
>
> 1) Bury the project
> 2) Scale the project down
>

> So, let?s recap what I said and note it was nothing like ?build a
> boardgame simulator?
>
> Copy & paste :
>
> ?I know you won't listen ...but you have to scale it back to where

> you're totally uncomfortable with it :)
>
> Team play : chuck it out
>
> Granularity : 20 km from data-point to data-point and corps/army
> sized
> units
>
> Supply : make it so rudimentary / design for effect you can code it
> in
> a day

I think you're arguing about different things and may actually be in
violent agreement.

I don't think Eddy's talking about a boardgame port, just a game whose
engine uses some form of abstraction in those places where process-
simulation would be too time-consuming and/or costly.

Gifty, you acknowledged not that long ago that you wouldn't mind playing
a computer game that used some boardgame-like conventions in its engine,
as long as you didn't have to see them or think of them in those terms.

Imagine a Russian Front comptuer wargame. Let's say there are no hexes,
phases, whatever. The designer, having got this far, needs to implement
partisan warfare.

Option 1: He can have the player "draw" a partisan activity card or roll
some dice, which tells him the effects on supply, other modifiers
involved, etc. Definitely sub-optimal for a computer game.

Option 2: He can create lots of little partisan band objects that attack
rail and supply objects and have to contend with anti-partisan security
objects and out of all of this comes the information he needs: how much
partisan operations are hurting his ability to prosecure his military
campaign. He could pull in population data and anti-Nazi feeling data to
determine where and when partisan bands appear. Note that even an option
like this is going to involve abstraction at some point. *

Option 3: Option 1's process, with the information presented to the
player in the form of Option 2.

If Option 1 takes, say two months, and Option 2 takes a week, is option
3 really so terrible. Also, is it really any less realistic, since
presumably it will be tested to some degree against whet the designer
knows about historical level sof partisan activity.

* I'm aware that this scenario probably throws my utter ignorance of
game programming into stark relief, but I think you'll see the point I'm
making anyway.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 8 feb, 13:36, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think I see a pattern here :)
>
> You do.  I'm not talking about the first one to build <thing>, I'm
> talking about the first one to get <thing> *right*.

I see. Good point.

> Look at the Model T Ford.  There had been automobiles before, sure, but
> the Model T was the first one that *got it right*.  It was mass
> produced, and could be sold cheaply to the middle class.

Are you saying getting it right involved scaling it back ? :)

>  It was simple and robust and reliable.

... nah, too easy :)

> > And nobody says you can't have that, but the reality is that such
> > games are few and far between. Like 1 a year. That's maybe fine for
> > you, but I want more.
>
> Well, HPS already releases a shit-ton of games I don't buy, so I'm
> familiar with the "wait for something good" approach.

Let's take a closer look at our WotY winner : Steam & Iron.

As I see it, it was almost exactly build like you and other naval
buffs in here had been saying for years to naval wargame developers :
drop the 3D, give us realistic fleet command in 2D. From what I gather
in the forums the developer also listens to the community and
implements requested features.

This leaves me wondering why sometimes this "return to the essentials"
is a good thing, and widely applauded both commercially and
critically, while at other times the very same advice is frowned upon
and immediatly reduced to a call for "boardgames on the pc"

Read what I wrote : I didn't call for hexes or going turn-based or
doing away with the command & control in the Command Ops engine - I
called for chucking out the stuff most wargamers do not care about
like team play or supply & logistics as a way to cut down on
develoment time, hence development cost.

I keep waiting for someone to come up with an alternative.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 8 feb, 13:38, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <5a076b0c-955b-4c57-a1ff-fccf94425962

> @j9g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > Got a 3rd option ?
>
> Get more people to buy it?

In that case going Kickstarter is an excellent idea - not really to
fund it, but to gauge intrest for the game and get some good pr going.

Apart from the time to setup the Kickstarter project, there's no risk
involved (if you do the numbers correctly) and it would settle this
question once and for all.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <c2656c84-a0f2-41ce-b504-44b368b46033
@r8g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > Look at the Model T Ford. ï¿œThere had been automobiles before, sure, but
> > the Model T was the first one that *got it right*. ï¿œIt was mass

> > produced, and could be sold cheaply to the middle class.
>
> Are you saying getting it right involved scaling it back ? :)

No. I'm saying getting it right involves *getting it right*. Not
scaling it down. Not dumbing it down. Not compromising away the things
that are necessary.

Getting it right.

> > Well, HPS already releases a shit-ton of games I don't buy, so I'm
> > familiar with the "wait for something good" approach.
>
> Let's take a closer look at our WotY winner : Steam & Iron.
>
> As I see it, it was almost exactly build like you and other naval
> buffs in here had been saying for years to naval wargame developers :
> drop the 3D, give us realistic fleet command in 2D. From what I gather
> in the forums the developer also listens to the community and
> implements requested features.
>
> This leaves me wondering why sometimes this "return to the essentials"
> is a good thing, and widely applauded both commercially and
> critically, while at other times the very same advice is frowned upon
> and immediatly reduced to a call for "boardgames on the pc"

Whoa. Stop right there. STEAM AND IRON is exactly the *opposite* of a
"boardgame on the PC." There are *zero* boardgamey conventions and
compromises. The player is presented with the information that would be
available to a fleet / formation commander, and able to give only the
orders such a person could give in real life.

If implemented as a boardgame and then translated into a boardgame
simulator, we'd have things like "chit-picking" to determine who moves
next, "deck-building" to determine who had the advantage in damage
control and gunnery, "card-turning" to define random events, and similar
malarkey that takes us farther from the business of commanding
formations of warships at sea.

No. STEAM AND IRON *gets it right*. It doesn't have to "return to the
essentials," for the simple reason that it never included anything
except the essentials, expressed as realistically as possible.

> Read what I wrote : I didn't call for hexes or going turn-based or
> doing away with the command & control in the Command Ops engine - I
> called for chucking out the stuff most wargamers do not care about
> like team play or supply & logistics as a way to cut down on
> develoment time, hence development cost.

And Arjuna says no. Apparently, he feels leaving this out would
compromise the design.

[Arjuna]

Perhaps we need to strive for two things. First a way of getting people to pay more per unit and secondly trying to get more than 3000 customers. 5000 customers each paying $100 would do it.

My question is how can we come up with a vehicle that gets 5000 customers to put their $100 up front.