Lazyness of game developers
Bloodstar
One example...
Gary Grisby War in The East...
Of course that I will buy this game but reading game forums shows me that
some things will not be in the game or will be very abstracted:
- NO BRIDGES IN THE GAME.... What the fuck? Eastern front game without
bridges? Everyone including your ant knows how much bridges were important
on Eastern Front. Do I need to mention
http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/GermanFieldMarshalsWW2/ErichvonManstein..html
(Manstein did well, by the 5th. day of entering Russia his forces had moved
200 miles, and captured the Dvina River bridge intact.), Bug river bridges,
Dnepr river bridges (just see the troubles Germans had to cross Dnepr at
Borisov, Dnepr was 750 yards wide at that point), Luga river, Dniester,
Ingulets, Kalach bridge at Don etc,.... etc...
- Only one set of graphic tiles - yes you nato whores that is only nato
counters (I think)
- no pictures of leaders or weapons (in Alpha!) hmmm, how hard is this to
put pictures of tanks, Manstein, Zhukov, T-34 and Yak-3...
- No Murmansk as map ends few hundred kilometers from Leningrad...
Things like this could be measured with additional dozens if not scores of
things...
Which in fact doesn't add to game quality.....
Those pro simplicity wargamers, gimme a break... It's actually good that
Eastern Front will get this monster game as compared vis-a-vis Pacifuc
theatre it was certanly much more important, with so many battles, and
casualties on both sides cannot even be compared.
I am actually against this putting too much emphasis on battles and theatres
where Americans fought... OK, make those games but what is enough is
enough... But I guess that European wargame developers needs to wake up or
be created and make more Euro or not Amerocentric wargames....
When we speak about casualties, Americans have lost 300000 soldiers during
War in The Pacific and Russians lost double that number (! hmm almost)
during ONLY battle at Stalingrad.
So significance of Eastern Front is downplayed and there every village or
bigger town was more fought over than bigger part of American-Japanese
conflict. Russians has lost more than 100000 soldiers (died!) during assault
on OREL after Kursk battle not to mention other casualties on THAT part of
the front in 1941, 1942.
Mario
Bloodstar
oops sorry Americans lost about 100000 MIA or KIA in Pacific theatre.
That is the number Russians lost during assault on Orel in September and
August of 1943.
Go figure.
Cronos
> Or we may say that wargame developers decided to cut corners very much...
>
> One example...
Que theme song to The Twilight Zone...
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Bloodstar wrote:
> > Or we may say that wargame developers decided to cut corners very much...
>
> > One example...
>
> Que theme song to The Twilight Zone...
aka "The Mario Zone" :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
smr
So sorry we're more efficient at achieving our goals militarily without
sacrificing men in truckload lots than you drunken, Slavic barbarians.
Get a political system that treats its members as something other than
cannon fodder to be squeezed, maybe stop with that whole hero worship
thing you tend to do with genocidal tyrants, and you, too, can win a war
without putting 60% of an entire fucking generation into the grave.
--
smr
Magnorff
"smr" <m...@shawnritchie.com> skrev i melding
news:hfrf59$oeo$1...@ftupet.ftupet.com...
Then cunningly make sure you've got a really huge stretch of ocean between
you and your (potential) enemy preventing said enemy reaching you in large
enough numbers to wipe out generations worth of non genodicidal tyrant
worshipping citizens .
And a winner is you!*
(*Practically guaranteed 60% military goal achivement rate)
M
Moats: The forgotten art of war
Bloodstar
>> sacrificing men in truckload lots than you drunken, Slavic barbarians.
>> Get a political system that treats its members as something other than
>> cannon fodder to be squeezed, maybe stop with that whole hero worship
>> thing you tend to do with genocidal tyrants, and you, too, can win a war
>> without putting 60% of an entire fucking generation into the grave.
Now you see why this idiot is in my killfile.
Bostonmyk
wrote:
> Or we may say that wargame developers decided to cut corners very much...
>
> One example...
>
> Gary Grisby War in The East...
>
> Of course that I will buy this game but reading game forums shows me that
> some things will not be in the game or will be very abstracted:
>
> - NO BRIDGES IN THE GAME.... What the fuck? Eastern front game without
> bridges? Everyone including your ant knows how much bridges were important
Hi Mario,
Not sure casualty rates are a great way to determine a theme. Suspect
the market drives game theme more than anything else. Get more
Europeans buying and you might see a change from American themed games
to European.
Mike
Giftzwerg
500cda...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, bost...@gmail.com says...
> > So significance of Eastern Front is downplayed and there every village or
> > bigger town was more fought over than bigger part of American-Japanese
> > conflict. Russians has lost more than 100000 soldiers (died!) during assault
> > on OREL after Kursk battle not to mention other casualties on THAT part of
> > the front in 1941, 1942.
> Not sure casualty rates are a great way to determine a theme. Suspect
> the market drives game theme more than anything else. Get more
> Europeans buying and you might see a change from American themed games
> to European.
Casualties suffered might even be *inversely* proportional to degree of
interest in a battle.
There are tons of games dealing with "France '40," but not so many
dealing with "Verdun '16." I would argue that despite the importance of
both battles, the nationalities involved, and the vast numbers of
casualties at Verdun, the average wargamer would rather play a game
where it wasn't simply a matter of shoveling cannonfodder into the
meatgrinder.
Too many Russian front battles fall into this category; the Russians
bring up eleventy-zillion troops and barge into the German positions.
The Germans slaughter fivety-zillion Russians, but ultimately have to
retreat.
Booooooooooring.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"A day after Sen. Joe Lieberman said he won't vote for the Democratic
health reform bill as currently written, a progressive public policy
blog is trying to oust his wife Hadassah as global ambassador for the
Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast cancer group."
- Ira Teinowitz
"What's the difference between the Mafia and a Hollywood Leftist? the
Mafia doesn't go after your family."
- Big Hollywood
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Not sure casualty rates are a great way to determine a theme.
AFAIK there's a grand total of 1 game covering the Taiping rebellion -
25 million killed - and it sucks.
> Suspect
> the market drives game theme more than anything else.
That and developer preference.
> Get more
> Europeans buying and you might see a change from American themed games
> to European.
Hmm.
European themed games released this year :
Crown of Glory 2 - Emperor's Edition
Musket and Pike : Renaissance
War in Europe II
Close Combat - The Longest Day
Distant Guns 1.5
Total War in Europe : War on the Southern Front
Horse and Musket: Volume I, Frederick the Great
World War 2 - Time of Wrath
Operation Barbarossa - The Struggle for Russia
Eagle Day to the Bombing of the Reich
Imperium Mini: A Brief History of Rome
The History Channel - Great Battles of the Middle Ages
Napoleonic Battles : Austerlitz
For the Glory
US themed games released this year :
Civil War Battles - Chancellorsville
War in the Pacific - Admiral's Edition
Ironclads - High Sea
Gettysburg Day One : The Fight for the Heights
Common knowledge says wargame sales in the US outnumber European ones
by a factor of 1.5 to 2, yet European themed games outnumber US themed
ones by a factor of 3.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Bloodstar
Hi Mario,
Not sure casualty rates are a great way to determine a theme. Suspect
the market drives game theme more than anything else. Get more
Europeans buying and you might see a change from American themed games
to European.
Mike
--
I didn't say that I was 100% right in this. But to elaborate a little bit
further. I was just saying that Eastern Front is not so well researched area
by game developers and that there had been many interesting situation that
could be brought into splendid games. I am not denying a market force. And
maybe there is also Pacific themes that are undeveloped (Tarawa? Okinawa?
Burma operation? New Guinea? Phillipines? Malaya? etc...).
Maybe I was a bit too harsh but I was just saying that sometimes game
developers are not researching potential topics enough. But this may be also
due to money constraints. Captured German archives are well documented in
USA archive stores. Maps can be found also with more or less difficulties.
Problems by Ziemke (it was then when he wrote "Stalingrad to Berlin",
excellent book! And I like his style of writing, full or irony and sometimes
even you can laugh at his remarks) are USSR archives which are now open and
there are millions of documents in Moscow but those that are filtrated and
released to the west are just tip of an iceberg - and sometimes are OK and
sometimes are wildly innacurate.
Mario
Bostonmyk
Okay thanks Eddy. I'm not buying my argument on this as much anymore
either:)
How many of the games you posted have US forces in them and do you
think that theme may be less important in the decision to publish a
sequel or selling an update to a successful game (whatever that is in
this niche)?
>
> Common knowledge says wargame sales in the US outnumber European ones
> by a factor of 1.5 to 2, yet European themed games outnumber US themed
> ones by a factor of 3.
Got a link Eddy? I've honestly never seen anybody post numbers other
than some obnoxious bs posted by one of Matrix or Maddox's forum
bozos.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
> How many of the games you posted have US forces in them and do you
> think that theme may be less important in the decision to publish a
> sequel or selling an update to a successful game (whatever that is in
> this niche)?
Having US units in a game definitely is a bonus - back in the eighties
it used to be the rule of the 3 N's : a game's success was
proportional to the how many it had of the N factors : Nukes, Nazis
and Nato - these days I'd say there are other deciding factors
including, but not limited to : US units present, good enough
graphics, passable AI, scenarios and campaigns.
> > Common knowledge says wargame sales in the US outnumber European ones
> > by a factor of 1.5 to 2, yet European themed games outnumber US themed
> > ones by a factor of 3.
>
> Got a link Eddy? I've honestly never seen anybody post numbers other
> than some obnoxious bs posted by one of Matrix or Maddox's forum
> bozos.
It's the factor/number which crops up if you talk to industry insiders
- it depends on the game of course as a game of Rise of Prussia (for
instance) will probably have a proportionally bigger appeal in Europe
than in the US - but overall that's the factor you hear.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Mike Kreuzer
news:7d1c4f2d-dfd9-48a9...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Could just be part of the phenomenon known as The Worst Year for Computer
Wargaming Ever. (TM.)
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Bloodstar
Okay thanks Eddy. I'm not buying my argument on this as much anymore
either:)
How many of the games you posted have US forces in them and do you
think that theme may be less important in the decision to publish a
sequel or selling an update to a successful game (whatever that is in
this niche)?
---
I don't want to be misunderstood like Eddy is always doing....
I was talking about East Front in correlation with WITP!
And I just said that thank you my cock that they are doing East Front
MONSTER game after WITP, Orange bla bla and AE.
Read my original post.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Could just be part of the phenomenon known as The Worst Year for Computer
> Wargaming Ever. (TM.)
Yeah, well, I've been compiling a list of wargames published by year
and it looks like 1991 was actually worse :)
QQP - The Perfect General
QQP - The Lost Admiral
RAW - White Death
SSI - Western Front - The Liberation of Europe 1944-1945
SSI - No Greater Glory : The American Civil War
SSG - MacArthur's War: Battles for Korea
But 2010 is looking better ... at least on paper with :
- successor to Advanced Tactics, operational WWII
- Battles from the Bulge
- Rise of Prussia
- War in the East
- Lock 'n Load
- World in Flames
- Joint Force Commander
...
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> But 2010 is looking better ... at least on paper with :
>
> - successor to Advanced Tactics, operational WWII
> - Battles from the Bulge
> - Rise of Prussia
> - War in the East
> - Lock 'n Load
> - World in Flames
> - Joint Force Commander
Maybe ROAD TO MOSCOW, too?
Call that a nod to the "if they appear..." point of view.
2009 was supposed to be a WOTY shootout between three really decent
games - BFTB, L&L:HOS, and WCNAW - and turned out to be a total walkover
for WCNAW by default[1].
How many of these will end up in "Q2 2011" or beyond?
[1] Sort of an unfair point, since WCNAW can give any wargame a run for
its money in terms of realism, gameplay, and pure value.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <2debe4a4-f524-4609-86ee-000f44334fa7
>
> > But 2010 is looking better ... at least on paper with :
>
> > - successor to Advanced Tactics, operational WWII
> > - Battles from the Bulge
> > - Rise of Prussia
> > - War in the East
> > - Lock 'n Load
> > - World in Flames
> > - Joint Force Commander
>
> Maybe ROAD TO MOSCOW, too?
One would hope so - conceptually that game rocked :)
> Call that a nod to the "if they appear..." point of view.
Based on the principle that when it rains, it pours chances are we'll
get half a dozen good releases in a single month :)
> 2009 was supposed to be a WOTY shootout between three really decent
> games - BFTB, L&L:HOS, and WCNAW - and turned out to be a total walkover
> for WCNAW by default[1].
10 days to go until the WotY election - we'll see if your view is
shared by the unwashed masses :)
Daniel Lamb has done another excellent job on the badges - they're
available here :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25663989@N07/sets/72157623035339710/
> How many of these will end up in "Q2 2011" or beyond?
Given past experience : at least some games in that list. But we will
also get a couple of games out of the blue. Zeus knows what game John
Hawkins (WPP) or Frank Hunter, just to name those 2, are working on
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
b7b5d7...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> > Maybe ROAD TO MOSCOW, too?
>
> One would hope so - conceptually that game rocked :)
>
> > Call that a nod to the "if they appear..." point of view.
>
> Based on the principle that when it rains, it pours chances are we'll
> get half a dozen good releases in a single month :)
June 2012, perhaps?
> > 2009 was supposed to be a WOTY shootout between three really decent
> > games - BFTB, L&L:HOS, and WCNAW - and turned out to be a total walkover
> > for WCNAW by default[1].
>
> 10 days to go until the WotY election - we'll see if your view is
> shared by the unwashed masses :)
It would be a miracle if it was. But I'm tempted to *only* select WCNAW
this year. While there have been other games I liked, they've been
sequels to (CC:TLD) or new marketing versions of (BGC:E1) previous
titles.
Put it this way; there might have been another new game I reviewed
favorably this year ... but the fact that I can't recall it says volumes
about how this year went. For my money, WCNAW was just head and
shoulders above everything else.
> Daniel Lamb has done another excellent job on the badges - they're
> available here :
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/25663989@N07/sets/72157623035339710/
Those are rather nice; well done.
> > How many of these will end up in "Q2 2011" or beyond?
>
> Given past experience : at least some games in that list. But we will
> also get a couple of games out of the blue. Zeus knows what game John
> Hawkins (WPP) or Frank Hunter, just to name those 2, are working on
Here's hoping we're playing some of them before I get my hands on
FALLOUT4.
CaligulasHorse
<eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 dec, 08:29, "Mike Kreuzer" <m...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com> wrote:
>
> > Could just be part of the phenomenon known as The Worst Year for Computer
> > Wargaming Ever. (TM.)
>
> Yeah, well, I've been compiling a list of wargames published by year
> and it looks like 1991 was actually worse :)
>
> QQP - The Perfect General
> QQP - The Lost Admiral
> RAW - White Death
> SSI - Western Front - The Liberation of Europe 1944-1945
> SSI - No Greater Glory : The American Civil War
> SSG - MacArthur's War: Battles for Korea
But ... Grigsby's Western Front was pretty damn good. A little bit
unfinished, but a great system for the time, and IMO the most
interesting campaign of WW2. If only he was working on improving that
system, for that campaign and at that scale - rather than the east
front monster-thinggie.
And the SSG game was an add-on pack, wasn't it, for *that* great, kind-
of-unfinished SSG system where you coammanded a superior HQ and the
computer controlled the units under that HQ. If only the SSG guys were
working on a 2010 version, instead of recreating board games on a
computer ...
eddys...@hotmail.com
> On Dec 22, 7:42 pm, "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
>
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 22 dec, 08:29, "Mike Kreuzer" <m...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com> wrote:
>
> > > Could just be part of the phenomenon known as The Worst Year for Computer
> > > Wargaming Ever. (TM.)
>
> > Yeah, well, I've been compiling a list of wargames published by year
> > and it looks like 1991 was actually worse :)
>
> > QQP - The Perfect General
> > QQP - The Lost Admiral
> > RAW - White Death
> > SSI - Western Front - The Liberation of Europe 1944-1945
> > SSI - No Greater Glory : The American Civil War
> > SSG - MacArthur's War: Battles for Korea
>
> But ... Grigsby's Western Front was pretty damn good.
> A little bit
> unfinished, but a great system for the time,
Never played it, at the time it didn't strike me as a must-have - but
that's probably just me
> and IMO the most
> interesting campaign of WW2. If only he was working on improving that
> system, for that campaign and at that scale - rather than the east
> front monster-thinggie.
Would you be surprised to learn that even before War in the East is
out a lot of people are clamouring for a War in the West game at the
same scale and even an über-game linking both ? :)
> And the SSG game was an add-on pack, wasn't it, for *that* great, kind-
> of-unfinished SSG system where you coammanded a superior HQ and the
> computer controlled the units under that HQ. If only the SSG guys were
> working on a 2010 version, instead of recreating board games on a
> computer ...
It's their niche - and very few people dispute the fact they're king
of their niche.
Still - If you compare 1991 to other years of that era it was a pretty
lean one.
Some examples : from 1992 :
Microprose - Task Force 1942 - loved that game :)
SSG - Panzer Battles
Three-Sixty - V for Victory: Utah Beach
1993 :
Clash of Steel 2
High Command
Three-Sixty - V for Victory: Gold, Juno, Sword
Three-Sixty - V for Victory: Market Garden
Three-Sixty - V for Victory: Velikiye Luki
1994 :
SSI - Panzer General
Grigsby - War in Russia
AH - Kingmaker
Fifth Fleet
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Bloodstar
And who sent ROAD TO MOSCOW ALPHA to Eddy Sterckx? :o))))
That ungrateful bastard already forgotten my kindness. :o))))
Bloodstar
>
> That ungrateful bastard already forgotten my kindness. :o))))
BTW, I still have Alpha of Road to Moscow and once I return from the trip I
will send it to someone from this ng.
I have sent ORIGINAL CD to Eddy but have a copy still in my home.
Map on that game was gorgeus.
Few lucky bastards will have a chance to get CD mailed next week. Drop me a
line on vonc...@gmail.com if you want piece of wargaming history.
Dimensional Traveler
> <eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7d1c4f2d-dfd9-48a9...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 21, 6:41 pm, Bostonmyk <boston...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> How many of the games you posted have US forces in them and do you
>>> think that theme may be less important in the decision to publish a
>>> sequel or selling an update to a successful game (whatever that is in
>>> this niche)?
>>
>> Having US units in a game definitely is a bonus - back in the eighties
>> it used to be the rule of the 3 N's : a game's success was
>> proportional to the how many it had of the N factors : Nukes, Nazis
>> and Nato - these days I'd say there are other deciding factors
>> including, but not limited to : US units present, good enough
>> graphics, passable AI, scenarios and campaigns.
>>
>>> > Common knowledge says wargame sales in the US outnumber European ones
>>> > by a factor of 1.5 to 2, yet European themed games outnumber US themed
>>> > ones by a factor of 3.
>>>
>>> Got a link Eddy? I've honestly never seen anybody post numbers other
>>> than some obnoxious bs posted by one of Matrix or Maddox's forum
>>> bozos.
>>
>> It's the factor/number which crops up if you talk to industry insiders
>> - it depends on the game of course as a game of Rise of Prussia (for
>> instance) will probably have a proportionally bigger appeal in Europe
>> than in the US - but overall that's the factor you hear.
>>
>
> Computer Wargaming Ever. (TM.)
>
:-P
--
"Dude. They've gone fractal."
Mike Kreuzer
news:43264ab7-afc4-4b33...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On 22 dec, 12:44, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <2debe4a4-f524-4609-86ee-000f44334fa7
>> @a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> > But 2010 is looking better ... at least on paper with :
>>
>> > - successor to Advanced Tactics, operational WWII
>> > - Battles from the Bulge
>> > - Rise of Prussia
>> > - War in the East
>> > - Lock 'n Load
>> > - World in Flames
>> > - Joint Force Commander
>>
>> Maybe ROAD TO MOSCOW, too?
>
> One would hope so - conceptually that game rocked :)
>
>> Call that a nod to the "if they appear..." point of view.
>
> Based on the principle that when it rains, it pours chances are we'll
> get half a dozen good releases in a single month :)
>
>> 2009 was supposed to be a WOTY shootout between three really decent
>> games - BFTB, L&L:HOS, and WCNAW - and turned out to be a total walkover
>> for WCNAW by default[1].
>
> 10 days to go until the WotY election - we'll see if your view is
> shared by the unwashed masses :)
Speaking of laziness ... I'm about to go on holidays for a few weeks, so
please put me down for:
1. WCNAW
2. -
3. -
And have a happy festivus!
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Jeff Urs
wrote:
> I didn't say that I was 100% right in this. But to elaborate a little bit
> further. I was just saying that Eastern Front is not so well researched area
> by game developers and that there had been many interesting situation that
> could be brought into splendid games. I am not denying a market force. And
> maybe there is also Pacific themes that are undeveloped (Tarawa? Okinawa?
> Burma operation? New Guinea? Phillipines? Malaya? etc...).
Was there a Dark Ages between the ancient board wargamers and the the
wargamers of the Computer Renaissance during which vast stores of
accumulated knowledge were lost? Because it seems to me that all of
these subjects were pretty extensively researched for boardgames back
in the late '70s and early '80s.
--
Jeff
Jeff Urs
> Then cunningly make sure you've got a really huge stretch of ocean between
> you and your (potential) enemy preventing said enemy reaching you in large
> enough numbers to wipe out generations worth of non genodicidal tyrant
> worshipping citizens .
>
> And a winner is you!*
>
> (*Practically guaranteed 60% military goal achivement rate)
Although not letting said potential enemy resurrect his banned air
force in your country (as Lenin did) might also help, as might not
dividing buffer states with him and not signing treaties with him that
give him the security to go off and try eliminate the immediate threat
from other foes that otherwise makes you as difficult to approach as
said ocean would.
--
Jeff
eddys...@hotmail.com
When you develop a pc wargame you're starting out with a baseline
audience of 10000 people tops. In that kind of market you better pick
a subject that at least interests a big portion of that audience and
unfortunately forgotten battles of the East Front isn't that popular.
Back in the eighties Nato vs. WP games on the computer were everywhere
- these days I'd jump on a new pc wargame set in 1985 in a nanosecond,
but I realize that's a minority opinion/taste today.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
6a6ec9...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> > Was there a Dark Ages between the ancient board wargamers and the the
> > wargamers of the Computer Renaissance during which vast stores of
> > accumulated knowledge were lost? Because it seems to me that all of
> > these subjects were pretty extensively researched for boardgames back
> > in the late '70s and early '80s.
>
> When you develop a pc wargame you're starting out with a baseline
> audience of 10000 people tops. In that kind of market you better pick
> a subject that at least interests a big portion of that audience and
> unfortunately forgotten battles of the East Front isn't that popular.
It bears mention, though, that there's nothing in the US Constitution -
or any other fundamental legislation in any country I know of - that
precludes a developer from including *more than one* battle in a new
game system.
Why not a game that includes some of these "forgotten" - but
nevertheless interesting to many gamers - operations right along with
The Big Popular Ones? Speaking for myself, it's sometimes the
"sleeper" scenarios that turn out to be what I'm having the most fun
with.
Why not a couple of "subjects?" This is what I find astounding about so
many products; after having done all the grunt work to build a base
system, the developer fails to include tons of battles / scenarios - the
aspect of development that seems like the *easy* part.
For example, the upcoming (?) BATTLES FROM THE BULGE. A system that can
handle the Ardennes Offensive must necessarily include estabs for
American, German, and Commonwealth units ... how hard would it be -
after the *massive* expenditures of time and effort to create the base
system - to expand the thing to cover virtually any western front battle
from Normandy to the Elbe?
Why limit it to The Bulge? Why not a "Cobra" expansion pack? Or
"Falaise?"
eddys...@hotmail.com
> how hard would it be -
> after the *massive* expenditures of time and effort to create the base
> system - to expand the thing to cover virtually any western front battle
> from Normandy to the Elbe?
Things you need for a Normandy game which are not in the BFTB game
(caveat : I'm not entirely current anymore)
- minefields
- naval gunfire
- jabo's / a more developed air component
- new terrain types : cliffs / hedgerows / bunkers
- additional estabs - from US Army Rangers, to British "funnies" to
German units with mostly French/Russian equipment
- new maps
- new scenarios
- thousands of hours of playtesting to test and balance it all.
Short : don't expect a Normandy game within a year or even 2 of the
BFTB release date - it's just an enormous amount of work to get it to
the level where a grog says "now there's a Normandy game which looks
and feels like IRL"
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
e7f5cd...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> > how hard would it be -
> > after the *massive* expenditures of time and effort to create the base
> > system - to expand the thing to cover virtually any western front battle
> > from Normandy to the Elbe?
>
> Things you need for a Normandy game which are not in the BFTB game
> (caveat : I'm not entirely current anymore)
Firstly, I'm not talking about a game that takes in the amphibious
landings, but which consider battles taking place after moving off the
beaches. So much of the stuff you mention simply doesn't apply.
And I'm making a larger point here. Sure, tons of stuff would need to
be created to model "Falaise" in a game built for "Ardennes" ... but
it's not like the entire game system itself would need to be
reprogrammed. So you have to build some different estabs; I get the
impression that BFTB hasn't been delayed because somebody was having
trouble cobbling together an OOB for Kampfgruppe Peiper, but because
there was fundamental differences in the underlying code between COTA
and BFTB.
And I'm making an even larger point here; *every* developer, it seems,
fails to follow through on designs that are already coded. Look at SSG;
they build BATTLEFRONT - a game able to handle battalion-level
operational combat in the Pacific, North Africa, Europe ... and they
include four miserable scenarios and then *drop the whole thing*.
That's my point. Why not push *every* game engine to some reasonable
limit and thus extract every last dollar available?
Consider (not to pick on SSG) KHARKOV: DISASTER ON THE DONETS. It has
*one* battle and (effectively) *one* scenario. And it was a battle I
wasn't all that interested in. But they might have gotten my money
nonetheless if they'd included a couple more scenarios; the game was
already built! How hard would it have been?
Holdit
@hotmail.com says...
>
> That's my point. Why not push *every* game engine to some reasonable
> limit and thus extract every last dollar available?
>
You mean, like HPS?
;-)
Holdit
--
"Madame, they told me you were ugly; they did not exaggerate."
- Napoleon
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Firstly, I'm not talking about a game that takes in the amphibious
> landings,
Me neither.
> but which consider battles taking place after moving off the
> beaches. So much of the stuff you mention simply doesn't apply.
Huh ? Apart from the "cliffs" terrain feature every other item I
mentioned definitely played a major role in the fighting after the
initial landings.
> And I'm making a larger point here. Sure, tons of stuff would need to
> be created to model "Falaise" in a game built for "Ardennes" ... but
> it's not like the entire game system itself would need to be
> reprogrammed.
Nope - that would take 5 years :)
> So you have to build some different estabs; I get the
> impression that BFTB hasn't been delayed because somebody was having
> trouble cobbling together an OOB for Kampfgruppe Peiper, but because
> there was fundamental differences in the underlying code between COTA
> and BFTB.
Mostly all the sort of stuff I mentioned above - then there's
additions and refinements to the code. I think you need to have been a
beta bunny and to have gotten a glimpse into the whole wargame
creation process to see that it's just not a case of new map, new oob,
done.
> And I'm making an even larger point here; *every* developer, it seems,
> fails to follow through on designs that are already coded.
A combination of the following factors :
- A follow-up game takes more time than most people think
- A follow-up, though in every aspect better than the original, will
sell *less* copies because people are not seeing it as "new" anymore
- The developers are sick and tired of the code/era and want to try
something new.
- The developers know the build-in limitations of their design
> That's my point. Why not push *every* game engine to some reasonable
> limit and thus extract every last dollar available?
Well, it works for HPS, but do you really want every game developer
following that route ?
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > That's my point. Why not push *every* game engine to some reasonable
> > limit and thus extract every last dollar available?
>
> Well, it works for HPS, but do you really want every game developer
> following that route ?
But isn't there some middle ground between "keep selling scenario packs
as new games using a last-century system" and "building whole new game
with four scenarios and then dropping the whole thing?"
Bethesda has released five expansion packs for FALLOUT3, and I've now
spent more for the expansions than for the original product. And
wargames used to do the same thing; I have expansion disks in my
archives from tons of games.
Why is this now suddenly impossible in the wargaming world?
Giftzwerg
hold...@SPAMindigoPLEASE.ie says...
> > That's my point. Why not push *every* game engine to some reasonable
> > limit and thus extract every last dollar available?
> >
>
> You mean, like HPS?
They push *one* game engine to an unreasonable limit.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <3c94ac43-06cd-4def-a540-c2e0367b0720
>
> > > That's my point. Why not push *every* game engine to some reasonable
> > > limit and thus extract every last dollar available?
>
> > Well, it works for HPS, but do you really want every game developer
> > following that route ?
>
> But isn't there some middle ground between "keep selling scenario packs
> as new games using a last-century system" and "building whole new game
> with four scenarios and then dropping the whole thing?"
I see your point. But I think you're focussing too much on what SSG
does - see below
> Why is this now suddenly impossible in the wargaming world?
It's not really that rare - this year we saw an add-on pack for ToW2
(2 actually), Combat Mission and Jutland. We also had a dedicated
mission pack with Battle Group Commander: Episode One and games
largely build on an existing engine like Crown of Glory 2,
Chancellorsville, Close Combat - The Longest Day, Dien Bien Phu, War
on the Southern Front, Alexandrian Wars, WitP-AE, Eagle Day-BotR and
Austerlitz.
I think it's just because they're add-ons, scenario packs or version
2.0 of a game that we tend to overlook them.
I also think it might have something to do with the fact that most
wargame developers these days don't do this as a full-time job
anymore, so other priorities besides earning money come to the
surface. It's just like in literature : some writers are content to
write variations on the same theme their whole career, and they have
an audience too who like that familiarity, but the really good ones
can write on a multitude of topics.
Grigsby wouldn't be Grigsby if he didn't switch topics as much as he
did.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > But isn't there some middle ground between "keep selling scenario packs
> > as new games using a last-century system" and "building whole new game
> > with four scenarios and then dropping the whole thing?"
>
> I see your point. But I think you're focussing too much on what SSG
> does - see below
>
> > Why is this now suddenly impossible in the wargaming world?
>
> It's not really that rare - this year we saw an add-on pack for ToW2
> (2 actually), Combat Mission and Jutland. We also had a dedicated
> mission pack with Battle Group Commander: Episode One and games
> largely build on an existing engine like Crown of Glory 2,
> Chancellorsville, Close Combat - The Longest Day, Dien Bien Phu, War
> on the Southern Front, Alexandrian Wars, WitP-AE, Eagle Day-BotR and
> Austerlitz.
Most of these, though, aren't "expansion packs" or "add ons" for the
simple reason that they're standalone products for which the publisher
is charging full-boat, new game prices. They're firmly in the HPS camp
- a "new game" that's really just a scenario pack for an old game or a
re-working of an old game.
What I'm arguing for is something along the lines of the AGE OF RIFLES
"Campaign Disk," a product that gives the game new life with a host of
new campaigns and scenarios ... for a bargain price. I just don't see
why more wargame developers don't do this. Certainly mainstream games
do a land-office business in add-on products.
> I think it's just because they're add-ons, scenario packs or version
> 2.0 of a game that we tend to overlook them.
Or version XXXVI of a game.
> I also think it might have something to do with the fact that most
> wargame developers these days don't do this as a full-time job
> anymore, so other priorities besides earning money come to the
> surface. It's just like in literature : some writers are content to
> write variations on the same theme their whole career, and they have
> an audience too who like that familiarity, but the really good ones
> can write on a multitude of topics.
Something that interested me the other day. I was at Best Buy, and
noticed an add-on for MICROSOFT FLIGHT SIMULATOR X. New airplanes and a
kind of "fly the mail" campaign-type dealie. Nothing fabulous.
But it wasn't a Microsoft product. Some other company made it.
My question is what legalities are involved here; if I create a
"Sicily" expansion disk for HIGHWAY TO THE REICH ... can I sell it?
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Most of these, though, aren't "expansion packs" or "add ons"
Ok
> They're firmly in the HPS camp
> - a "new game" that's really just a scenario pack for an old game or a
> re-working of an old game.
Sure.
> What I'm arguing for is something along the lines of the AGE OF RIFLES
> "Campaign Disk," a product that gives the game new life with a host of
> new campaigns and scenarios ... for a bargain price. I just don't see
> why more wargame developers don't do this.
To avoid the whines of "these new scenarios should be made available
as a free patch to owners of the game because you *obviously* held
them back in the original release"
Of all the wargamers I know pc wargamers are the most anal about
money. The new Normandy board monster game will set you back $150, a
normal game is easily $70-80 and don't get me started on what
leadheads pay for their figs, but just try to sell a pc wargame for
more than $50 and see what happens.
Maybe you and I see no problem in plonking down $20 for a scenario
pack or some new campaigns but given the scarcity of such add-ons
coming out of the wargame publishing houses one can only assume
they've given up on that as not cost effective.
> My question is what legalities are involved here; if I create a
> "Sicily" expansion disk for HIGHWAY TO THE REICH ... can I sell it?
Not so long ago I quoted the TOAW EULA in here which explicitly stated
that all scenarios created by the user are owned by that user. As the
Matrix EULA is practically copy/pasted from game to game I'm pretty
sure the same applies to HttR.
So (with some caveat) : as you own them, yes, you can sell them.
The trouble is that if you started developing those scenarios you
would soon realize that a) it's a lot more work than most people would
think and b) that it requires some tuning/changes here or there in the
engine to make the quality grade - and then you're stuck.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
6f15f6...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> > What I'm arguing for is something along the lines of the AGE OF RIFLES
> > "Campaign Disk," a product that gives the game new life with a host of
> > new campaigns and scenarios ... for a bargain price. I just don't see
> > why more wargame developers don't do this.
>
> To avoid the whines of "these new scenarios should be made available
> as a free patch to owners of the game because you *obviously* held
> them back in the original release"
To be fair, though, this isn't something that happened with the DLC for
FALLOUT3 or with any of the Steam-based "Episodes" for HALF-LIFE2.
Bethesda offered me a spanking-new 12 hours of FALLOUT3 fun for $10, and
I cheerfully gave them the money.
And wargame developers have done fine with this kind of thing in the
past. I didn't hear that much whining when SSG, for example, offered
the ACROSS THE DNEPR expansion for KORSUN POCKET; it was a great game
(better than the original, IMO...) for the quite reasonable price of
fifteen bucks.
> Of all the wargamers I know pc wargamers are the most anal about
> money. The new Normandy board monster game will set you back $150, a
> normal game is easily $70-80 and don't get me started on what
> leadheads pay for their figs, but just try to sell a pc wargame for
> more than $50 and see what happens.
In terms of expansion scenarios or campaigns, I think the operative
dynamic would be whether gamers felt that the original product was far
too light in the scenario department, and the add-on was little more
than an attempt to charge for content that should have been in the base
game.
A judgement call, obviously, but the "whining" you predict would seem to
me to be based on how much value was in the original game.
> Maybe you and I see no problem in plonking down $20 for a scenario
> pack or some new campaigns but given the scarcity of such add-ons
> coming out of the wargame publishing houses one can only assume
> they've given up on that as not cost effective.
See below.
> > My question is what legalities are involved here; if I create a
> > "Sicily" expansion disk for HIGHWAY TO THE REICH ... can I sell it?
>
> Not so long ago I quoted the TOAW EULA in here which explicitly stated
> that all scenarios created by the user are owned by that user. As the
> Matrix EULA is practically copy/pasted from game to game I'm pretty
> sure the same applies to HttR.
>
> So (with some caveat) : as you own them, yes, you can sell them.
>
> The trouble is that if you started developing those scenarios you
> would soon realize that a) it's a lot more work than most people would
> think and b) that it requires some tuning/changes here or there in the
> engine to make the quality grade - and then you're stuck.
But consider this. SSG's BATTLEFRONT can clearly model Pacific island
amphibious actions, since "Okinawa" is one of the scenarios. What if
some enterprising gamer came out with a $15 download that had "Tarawa,"
"Iwo Jima," "Peleliu," "Saipan," and "Guadalcanal" scenarios? Maybe a
"Kyushu" what-if?
See, I just don't see where I'd hit any walls in creating such scenarios
for BATTLEFRONT. The islands are shaped differently, the forces are
different ... but what would there be to "stick" me in terms of upgrades
to the game engine itself?
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Before we let suspect computer models developed by a handful of people
drive the entire world economy into a ditch, don't you think we should
take the covers off and invest a little more time and effort to
thoroughly examine how these models work? Hopefully this will include
analytical critiques from a wider cast of characters than the self
serving cabal whose mendacity and ham-handed attempts to marginalize
dissent were recently exposed."
- Bill Frezza
finbogey
<giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Why limit it to The Bulge? Why not a "Cobra" expansion pack? Or
>"Falaise?"
Oh yeah, Falaise Pocket!
BP
>> My question is what legalities are involved here; if I create a
>> "Sicily" expansion disk for HIGHWAY TO THE REICH ... can I sell it? �
>
>Not so long ago I quoted the TOAW EULA in here which explicitly stated
>that all scenarios created by the user are owned by that user. As the
>Matrix EULA is practically copy/pasted from game to game I'm pretty
>sure the same applies to HttR.
>
>So (with some caveat) : as you own them, yes, you can sell them.
Ah, but even if the user owns the scenario he has created, and thus
theoretically could sell it... he does not own or have a right to use
the trademarks of the game, so he would have a hard time selling it as
an expansion. In other words, yes, he might be able to sell his
scenario - but not to identify what game the scenario is made for,
because the name of the game is trademarked.
BP
Giftzwerg
re...@newsgroup.please says...
> Ah, but even if the user owns the scenario he has created, and thus
> theoretically could sell it... he does not own or have a right to use
> the trademarks of the game, so he would have a hard time selling it as
> an expansion. In other words, yes, he might be able to sell his
> scenario - but not to identify what game the scenario is made for,
> because the name of the game is trademarked.
Something's wrong with this theory, though, because "aftermarket"
accessories exist for virtually every kind of product imaginable, every
single one of them explicitly identifying itself as suitable for use
with the parent product.
Apple, even - the most ruthless company imaginable when it comes to
protecting their trademarks - suffers a zillion products flagrantly and
brazenly identified as being "for the iPod." I can't imagine that Apple
explicitly licensed every fly-by-night company that advertises some add-
on for the iPhone - even though they must *hate* some of these products
with a bright, white passion.
Heck, every bit of software out there - even *malware* - explicitly
identifies itself as "for Microsoft Windows," even though Microsoft has
a vested interest in using every law on the books to rip that sticker
off the box. Microsoft even created the "Games for Windows" branding to
differentiate between products with Microsoft's stamp of approval and
products without it.
No, there's gotta be some fair-use provision (loophole, if you will) in
copyright laws to cover this sort of thing.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"[W]hat I can't wrap my head around is that it took the President four
days to acknowledge what he termed a 'catastrophic' national security
failure, but Cheney criticizes the administration's handling of the war
on terror and they have a rapid response on the White House blog in a
matter of hours? Priorities!"
- Mark Hemingway
eddys...@hotmail.com
> No, there's gotta be some fair-use provision (loophole, if you will) in
> copyright laws to cover this sort of thing.
You can always claim your scenario is a parody and thus free from
copyright issues :)
All kidding aside : "for use with <other company's product name>" is
so ubiquitous everywhere I look around me that I'm pretty sure it's
not a problem legally.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx