Exciting update to 2by3Games' developers journal

[Xargun]

OK lets play WAW.. I'll be Germany.. For those of who get Russia, Japan and the US I guess you have to sit out a couple years before you can play [:D] But actually, if there is some way to increase the database size (so we can put in anything and as much as we want) and edit the map (including size) then we can MOD our own WAW...

Xargun

[ckk]

Strategic level American Civil War, where do I sign up. I 've missed this sincew ACW went bellyup on me.[&o][&o][&o][&o][&o]

[Raverdave]

Ok this might sound a bit silly, and it is based on not having played the game yet, but to my eyes GGWaW looks like a somewhat simplistic game. I guess that I am going to have to spend some time over there and have a more detailed look. The Easten Front game and the ACW does interest me, but the GGWaW format has me a tad spooked.

[Jaws_slith]

So there is more ... than just waiting for the next patch[;)]

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

Ok this might sound a bit silly, and it is based on not having played the game yet, but to my eyes GGWaW looks like a somewhat simplistic game. I guess that I am going to have to spend some time over there and have a more detailed look. The Easten Front game and the ACW does interest me, but the GGWaW format has me a tad spooked.

Guilty as charged. Didn't mean to spook you. It is a simple game, although the comparisons with Risk are a bit ridiculous. It's probably 2-4 times the complexity of Axis & Allies, but that still puts it at about 10% of the complexity of War in the Pacific. I'm a long time gamer that has enjoyed monster games since the mid-seventies while also enjoying games like Axis & Allies (although it's way to unrealistic for more than social gaming). I assumed that most players interested in World War II would enjoy an easy to play game that covers the entire war as realisitically as any has given the scale of the game. It allows players to attempt alternative grand strategies (in terms of axis of attack and production plans) in a system that provides realistic constraints on the players (it's not Panzer General with artillery firing 100 miles, etc.). Those looking for detailed grand-tactical combat (ala WitP) and detailed division/battalion OOBs will clearly not find it in GGWaW. It is a true strategic game, unlike WitP which I consider to be a grand tactical game (when your tracking individual pilots around half the globe, that's pretty grand and pretty tactical to me). For your next grand tactical fix from 2by3, you'll have to wait for our Eastern Front game. Even though it will use the technology in GGWaW, it won't look or play anything like it.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
For your next grand tactical fix from 2by3, you'll have to wait for our Eastern Front game. ... it will use the technology in GGWaW ...

*sigh*

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

Ok this might sound a bit silly, and it is based on not having played the game yet, but to my eyes GGWaW looks like a somewhat simplistic game. I guess that I am going to have to spend some time over there and have a more detailed look. The Easten Front game and the ACW does interest me, but the GGWaW format has me a tad spooked.

Guilty as charged. Didn't mean to spook you. It is a simple game, although the comparisons with Risk are a bit ridiculous. It's probably 2-4 times the complexity of Axis & Allies, but that still puts it at about 10% of the complexity of War in the Pacific. I'm a long time gamer that has enjoyed monster games since the mid-seventies while also enjoying games like Axis & Allies (although it's way to unrealistic for more than social gaming). I assumed that most players interested in World War II would enjoy an easy to play game that covers the entire war as realisitically as any has given the scale of the game. It allows players to attempt alternative grand strategies (in terms of axis of attack and production plans) in a system that provides realistic constraints on the players (it's not Panzer General with artillery firing 100 miles, etc.). Those looking for detailed grand-tactical combat (ala WitP) and detailed division/battalion OOBs will clearly not find it in GGWaW. It is a true strategic game, unlike WitP which I consider to be a grand tactical game (when your tracking individual pilots around half the globe, that's pretty grand and pretty tactical to me). For your next grand tactical fix from 2by3, you'll have to wait for our Eastern Front game. Even though it will use the technology in GGWaW, it won't look or play anything like it.

so the new civil war game will not be grand tactical??? [&:] [:(] i was hoping it would be as no one has ever made a civil wargame on a scale like this before. always been a dream of mine...

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
For your next grand tactical fix from 2by3, you'll have to wait for our Eastern Front game. ... it will use the technology in GGWaW ...

*sigh*

I don't think you understand what I mean by technology. All I'm referring to is the method that the programmers use to put art on the screen, and the way that many game rules and art are structured to be easily moddable in data files instead of in hard code. They have nothing to do with how the game plays. If we were setting out to do UV today, we would use the GGWaW engine becuase the technology is much easier to work with. This doesn't mean it would be area movement like GGWaW. In fact that game could be done to play exactly as the current UV plays. Eastern Front using the GGWaW technology will still play exactly as we expected it to play back in 2000 when we first designed it. Eastern Front is much closer to WitP in detail and gameplay than it is to GGWaW. Am I not being clear about this?

As for the Civil War game, it will look and feel much more like GGWaW as it is intended as a medium/low complexity strategic game simulating the entire war using relatively "generic" units. It will have around 400 regions like GGWaW (currently, Virginia has 16 land regions and 5 water regions). With monthly turns and so much area to cover, we expect it will take longer to take longer to play than GGWaW (but still far short of the years it takes to play WitP). For those that like WitP and don't expect to like GGWaW, you won't like our Civil War game either for the same reasons. However, we obviously hope there will be a market for the game.

[Bodhi]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I don't think you understand what I mean by technology. All I'm referring to is the method that the programmers use to put art on the screen, and the way that many game rules and art are structured to be easily moddable in data files instead of in hard code. They have nothing to do with how the game plays. If we were setting out to do UV today, we would use the GGWaW engine becuase the technology is much easier to work with. This doesn't mean it would be area movement like GGWaW. In fact that game could be done to play exactly as the current UV plays. Eastern Front using the GGWaW technology will still play exactly as we expected it to play back in 2000 when we first designed it. Eastern Front is much closer to WitP in detail and gameplay than it is to GGWaW. Am I not being clear about this?

As for the Civil War game, it will look and feel much more like GGWaW as it is intended as a medium/low complexity strategic game simulating the entire war using relatively "generic" units. It will have around 400 regions like GGWaW (currently, Virginia has 16 land regions and 5 water regions). With monthly turns and so much area to cover, we expect it will take longer to take longer to play than GGWaW (but still far short of the years it takes to play WitP). For those that like WitP and don't expect to like GGWaW, you won't like our Civil War game either for the same reasons. However, we obviously hope there will be a market for the game.

Like many others here WaW doesn't appeal to me, but it may be worth getting just to check out your new game design mechanism to get a head start for modding any future games that do interest. I sure wish WitP was a bit more open.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I don't think you understand what I mean by technology. All I'm referring to is the method that the programmers use to put art on the screen, and the way that many game rules and art are structured to be easily moddable in data files instead of in hard code. They have nothing to do with how the game plays. If we were setting out to do UV today, we would use the GGWaW engine becuase the technology is much easier to work with. This doesn't mean it would be area movement like GGWaW. In fact that game could be done to play exactly as the current UV plays. Eastern Front using the GGWaW technology will still play exactly as we expected it to play back in 2000 when we first designed it. Eastern Front is much closer to WitP in detail and gameplay than it is to GGWaW. Am I not being clear about this?

As for the Civil War game, it will look and feel much more like GGWaW as it is intended as a medium/low complexity strategic game simulating the entire war using relatively "generic" units. It will have around 400 regions like GGWaW (currently, Virginia has 16 land regions and 5 water regions). With monthly turns and so much area to cover, we expect it will take longer to take longer to play than GGWaW (but still far short of the years it takes to play WitP). For those that like WitP and don't expect to like GGWaW, you won't like our Civil War game either for the same reasons. However, we obviously hope there will be a market for the game.

Like many others here WaW doesn't appeal to me, but it may be worth getting just to check out your new game design mechanism to get a head start for modding any future games that do interest. I sure wish WitP was a bit more open.

Same thing here. Games like WaW are a dime a dozen as this style is basically the new "light alcohol content, low carb, yuppie beer" of the wargame market. I like my stouts, ales and pilsners thank you very much[8D].

[TheHellPatrol]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Same thing here. Games like WaW are a dime a dozen as this style is basically the new "light alcohol content, low carb, yuppie beer" of the wargame market. I like my stouts, ales and pilsners thank you very much[8D].

True, after the HOI fiasco i think anything that even resembles it is going to cause some eyes to roll[8|]. I really want a Wit"M", a grand tactical ACW would be nice too:To sleep, perchance to dream...aye, there's the rub.

[von Murrin]

Guys, when Joel talks of using the GGWaW "technology" or "engine" for a new grand tactical game, he's not saying it will even at all look or play like GGWaW. Think of an engine like you would the basic frame of a building. GGWaW might look like a standard corporate office, but and future project could look like the Sears Tower.

An engine is a frame of useful code. Depending upon what you want to build, you can rip out or add functions as needed. For instance, the engine behind the upcoming Sid Meier's Pirates! is the same one used for Morrowind and Dark Age of Camelot, three very different games.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: von Murrin

Guys, when Joel talks of using the GGWaW "technology" or "engine" for a new grand tactical game, he's not saying it will even at all look or play like GGWaW. Think of an engine like you would the basic frame of a building. GGWaW might look like a standard corporate office, but and future project could look like the Sears Tower.

Yeah, and it could look like Grandpa's Two-Holer Sears & Roebuck Special Bung Fodder Outhouse, too.

[testarossa]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

No, it was Oleg Madox and 1C that did PF half backed. They already said before it got sent to UBI that they didn't want a third disk, so they would ship and then make a patch.

The number of CDs is the decision usually made by publisher, isn't it?

[ADavidB]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

[No reason why 2by3, like Nimitz, had to listen to MacArthur and assault Japan from a single approach. The fact that Nimitz withstood the pressure and stayed the course meant that the Central Pacific Drive augmented Dugout Doug's. So, why not approach the problem in two directions instead of one? Produce a WaW for the ignorant masses to play with and grab a sliver of the lucrative RT market, and the money goes to 2by3 with a portion going to the development of games for wargamers. Ours may well be a niche market but 2by3 at least have a near monopoly on it. No point in everyone running in the same direction.

Like my family used to do at BBQs, give the kids hot dogs and give the adults steak.[8D]

I've now had a chance to read Joel's notes and it sounds like Gary and Co are bored with doing traditional grognard games. That's too bad from my personal perspective, but if they are right, they will be a lot richer for their troubles. Oh well, as long as some of the irritations in WitP are fixed, it ought to last us another decade until Gary decides to again create something interesting for the old-school war game fans.

Dave Baranyi

[von Murrin]

ORIGINAL: testarossa

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

No, it was Oleg Madox and 1C that did PF half backed. They already said before it got sent to UBI that they didn't want a third disk, so they would ship and then make a patch.

The number of CDs is the decision usually made by publisher, isn't it?

Yes and no. They simply may not have been able to pay for a third disk.

[von Murrin]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: von Murrin

Guys, when Joel talks of using the GGWaW "technology" or "engine" for a new grand tactical game, he's not saying it will even at all look or play like GGWaW. Think of an engine like you would the basic frame of a building. GGWaW might look like a standard corporate office, but and future project could look like the Sears Tower.

Yeah, and it could look like Grandpa's Two-Holer Sears & Roebuck Special Bung Fodder Outhouse, too.

Don't be such a pessimist.[:D]

There's no reason the engine powering GGWaW can't be used for a complex hex-based game.

[ADavidB]

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

You also have to factor in the cost of people besides the 3 of 2by3: Mike Wood seems to have been spending most of his time on it for quite a while, also the cost of the supplying the art. I don't know how the Matrix/2by3 finances are organised for WitP but I doubt that the portion of DR and Matrix added together will be a "pittance". But I agree 2by3 probably aren't living on Cheetos, whatever they are.

Think "Pocky" and you will have an analogous concept - cheap junk food. [;)]

Dave Baranyi

[Bodhi]

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

ORIGINAL: Bodhi
But I agree 2by3 probably aren't living on Cheetos, whatever they are.

Think "Pocky" and you will have an analogous concept - cheap junk food. [;)]

Dave Baranyi

Heavens, I wouldn't want my worst enemy to have to live on a diet Pocky and Pokari Sweat! I now know what someone thinks of me if they ever offer me a Cheeto. Guess you must have a US equivalent of Pokari Sweat, oh wait ,yes you have ..... Coke! [:D]

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

You also have to factor in the cost of people besides the 3 of 2by3: Mike Wood seems to have been spending most of his time on it for quite a while, also the cost of the supplying the art. I don't know how the Matrix/2by3 finances are organised for WitP but I doubt that the portion of DR and Matrix added together will be a "pittance". But I agree 2by3 probably aren't living on Cheetos, whatever they are.

Think "Pocky" and you will have an analogous concept - cheap junk food. [;)]

Dave Baranyi

My kids would be very happy living on Cheetos. I like them too, but they usually finish them before I get many.