The strategic goal

[Banquet]

It's amazing to see how much research is done, and the detail we get in the game. Totally mindblowing!

What an age we live in, where all this is possible [:)]

[Rooster]

Wow. Jaw dropping detail! [&o]

Would it be possible to include the regimental band in the estabs? Then we can have some REAL discussions about how many flutes and what songs were played and so on... [;)]

[Arjuna]

[:D]...the nature of Roster is irrepressable! [:)]

[Isacco]

Steve and Arjuna,

Thanks for the infos (and for the patience).

I like to create something using your excellent engine but I don't know if will be possible: little amount of free time, very little amount of patience, ecc.

Only time will tell ....

Regards,

Isacco

[tukker]

I'd be happy to do some research and/or beta test. Just let me know how to sign up.

[Golf33]

ORIGINAL: Isacco

Steve and Arjuna,

Thanks for the infos (and for the patience).

I like to create something using your excellent engine but I don't know if will be possible: little amount of free time, very little amount of patience, ecc.

Only time will tell ....

Regards,

Isacco

Baby steps! Start out small, with a battalion- or regiment- level scenario with no reinforcements, that only runs for a day or two; that'll give you the confidence to explore further things like reinforcements and so on.

Regards
33

[Grognard]

Arjuna wrote:

He said that he saw one of his fellow soldiers hair go white over night under that bombardment.

At least he didn't mutiny, as that also happened at Salerno. How would you treat that in a scenario?

[Arjuna]

Some might say "with a wall and firing squad" [;)] but at the moment we don't have code in to handle full-scale mutinies.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston
I'd be asking for Panther to move up the scale to Army and Army Grouup/Front size battles. Operational-level games on computer are almost entirely boardgames-on-a-screen, and the whole genre is just crying out for some of the innovation that's been demonstrated in RDOA and HTTR [&o] (and a couple of other games like Decisive Action).
Barring entire rewrites of the engine though ([;)]), I would really like to see the Eastern Front, though there may be a problem of scale. If a Corps-size battle is a major undertaking in HTTR (and it is for me, at least), all the interesting East-Front battles might too big to game.

ORIGINAL: Willard
Think about using this system with Schwerpunkts RGW or upcoming AGW???
-No hexes / chain of command system
-utilizing Army Group/Army/Corps/Divisions/Brigades
Totally awesome...it would blow away traditional hex/boardgames as we know.
You guys are this close to doing it with HTTR anyway!!!

Hello guys, big (and silent) fan of HTTR's design.
Lately I have been dedicated to games in the operational scale (commanding corps/divisions) and particularly in the Eastern Front. Matrix's AtD, HPS's Panzer Campaigns and Schwerpunkt's Russo-German War are excellent wargames, each one shines in some particular aspect. However IMHO none of them are able to capture or portrait some essential features of the German's operational art:
1) Tempo and momentum. No point in trying to rapidly maneuver to shock the enemy. They are always given a very nice time alotment to react. In some cases they even move faster than you because of "friendly territory" hexes.
2) Deep penetration bypassing worthless enemy positions. A lousy, low trained Russian Rifle Div. is able to stop cold a lavishly equiped Pz. Div. Zones of control are kind of overrated.
3) Deep penetration and supplies. Pz. Divs. during June 1941 were able to penetrate and operate hundreds of kilometers behind the enemy lines. Their fighting ability was rarely hampered by lack of supplies. When it happened it was mainly because of lack of fuel. In all the games that I have it looks like a Pz. Div. can be defeated as far you make them run out of sausages!

Every time I play HTTR I cannot avoid to note that you guys nailed a system that is a dream come true. Coming back to the previous points above, in HTTR:
1) You can overwhelm an enemy company just throwing a batallion to it. They will back up in fear. Tempo and momentum reborn.
2) If you have the skills, you can maneuver your units through enemy opposition. Penetration reborn. Zone of control is proportional to enemy's firepower and depends on terrain.
3) With the new supply system and the detailed supply inventory that's already there I can imagine the possibilities. A Pz. Div. stoped because of lack of fuel still is worth and not defenseless!

I know is too much to ask. But imagine this: An operational level game with HTTR's design, divisions being the least possible unit. Ah! What a dream!
You would have to change the combat routines and aggregate the terrain types into new ones.
Anyway, I just wanted to post my thoughts about what Willard and Mark already said.
Cheers,

[Arjuna]

Chelco,

Thanks for the praise - always nice to hear! [:)]

My first wargame design to be published was the board game "Trial of Strength". This was a "strategic" level simulation of the Russian Front. I would love to redo that using our computer game engine. To do so would require at least 8 to 10 man years of effort. Thats around a million dollars worth after you factor in rent, hardware, software and other overheads. So we need to sell lots and lots of COTA to bankroll such a venture. We would also need to sell around 50,000 units of the new game to make it an economic proposition. That doesn't sound that many units compared to say Half Life or other "general market" type games, but in terms of wargames that's one huge mountain to climb.

Start to get an idea of the economics that drive this industry? We have sunk over 30 man years of effort into our existing engine and with the relatively pitiful sales volume we need to keep focusing on the current operational scale for some time to recoup our investment.

[Fred98]

I started this thread and it has been twisted.

This is a great game and I would like to see the success continue. But history shows that it will not.

I look forward to COTA. But what about after that? The usual suspects: tweak of the system, tweak the graphics and sounds, set in a new location and add a new feature or 2.

The fanatical fans will be in heaven but the general wargaming community will say “more of the same”. Instead it needs a major change.

That change is to move up to divisional level and take in half of Russia. Change the labels on the counters and amend the amount of men and equipment of each unit in the scenario editor. I dunno about code but it works fine in the scenario editor.

And there needs to be a strategic map with a series of tactical maps. A victory on one map allows you to move to another map.

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
Instead it needs a major change.

And pray tell who is going to fund that major change?

[Banquet]

I can't really agree Joe 98.

These days wargame development is a niche industry. Once an 'engine' has been designed it needs to be used as much as possible to recoup costs. The examples are everywhere (Close Combat, Combat Mission, Paradox games, HPS Games, etc)

The system in HttR is so good that it virtually renders all other landbased wargames obsolete. I'd like to see it scaled for all the varieties requested in this thread (single man, squad, platoon and division) but Panther games aren't the sort of company to just change the scale and leave it at that. If you change the scale you need to change a lot of other things and it requires a lot of work to do right.

The current system gives you command of the units that make up roughly a divisional size unit. There is LOADS of mileage in this system before most reasonable people start thinking 'more of the same' I can think of countless WWII ops I'd love to see simulated at this level.

It's easy to get carried away and want just about every possible wargame converted to the HttR system but lets try and remember Panther games are a small company struggling to be viable in an age where wargames don't sell in large numbers anymore.

Lets just be thankfully that HttR sold well enough to allow CotA to be made!

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

I started this thread and it has been twisted.

This is a great game and I would like to see the success continue. But history shows that it will not.

I look forward to COTA. But what about after that? The usual suspects: tweak of the system, tweak the graphics and sounds, set in a new location and add a new feature or 2.

The fanatical fans will be in heaven but the general wargaming community will say “more of the same”. Instead it needs a major change.

That change is to move up to divisional level and take in half of Russia. Change the labels on the counters and amend the amount of men and equipment of each unit in the scenario editor. I dunno about code but it works fine in the scenario editor.

And there needs to be a strategic map with a series of tactical maps. A victory on one map allows you to move to another map.

[Agema]

Have wargames ever shifted a lot of copies? I don't know so much about PC history, but in the old days of the Spectrum and Amiga in the 80s wargames were as small a niche market as they are now. And there's about as much chance of wargames breaking into the mass-market as there is of persuading ardent football fans to devote their Saturday afternoons to chess instead.

We play wargames for a good system and good AI, which HTTR has performed admirably at. Why should we switch off after just a while because it's a bit like the last one? Even with umpteen companies working at them, one first-person shooter or real-time strategy is much like another from many years previously except for the obligatory better graphics and tweaks and so on, and they still sell to the same people as well as ever. As it is, most companies as I see it just update the same engine, from id through the Creative Assembly to Paradox, or whoever.

Like Banquet, I'm also more interested in new campaigns rather than a large-scale engine overhaul.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna
Start to get an idea of the economics that drive this industry? We have sunk over 30 man years of effort into our existing engine and with the relatively pitiful sales volume we need to keep focusing on the current operational scale for some time to recoup our investment.

Dave,
It looks like I severely underestimated the amount of effort needed to adapt the engine to a bigger operational scale. I thought that just an aggregation tweak here and there was needed. My enthusiasm sometimes gets in the way of logic reasoning.
Nonetheless, allow me to say that is painful for me to read that a wargame of that scale using HTTR design pilars is certainly out of the plans.
Cheers,

[Jonas]

One of the things that dont work well is the Map-Scenario editors future, because the Estab are blocked. Simple no one are doing new maps and thats realy a pity. I recently bought BIN because i like to play east front, but i realy have some problems with hex games systems. Well, im going continue to buy your games but seems that i have to wait 10 years to play some east front battles.[>:]

[Real and Simulated Wars]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
Change the labels on the counters and amend the amount of men and equipment of each unit in the scenario editor. I dunno about code but it works fine in the scenario editor.

Hi Joe!
Terrain has to be aggregated more, combat routines have to be changed, movement has to be adjusted too. Sounds like a lot to do.
Cheers,

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: Jonas

One of the things that dont work well is the Map-Scenario editors future, because the Estab are blocked. Simple no one are doing new maps and thats realy a pity. I recently bought BIN because i like to play east front, but i realy have some problems with hex games systems. Well, im going continue to buy your games but seems that i have to wait 10 years to play some east front battles.[>:]

Jonas,

Point taken. However, with COTA you will get a swag of new Estabs suitable for the 1940/41 period for both German, Italian, Greek and ANZAC forces. By the time we have done BFTB you will have effectively the entire Estabs to cover any West Front battle.

We have also made some significant improvements to the ScenMaker by adding an Export/Import Force List feature that enables you to create Forces in one scenario and then export some all of them to a file that can be later imported into another scenario. This should facilitate the creation of lists for all major formations - eg 41 Pz Div, Aust 1940 Inf Div etc.

Providing an Estab editor is an option we have often debated and each time concluded that it would be counter productive to our long term future. We are too small with too few resources to be able to survive a situation where a year's effort in developing a particular battle is gazumped ( Aussie slang for "beaten to the punch" ) by other users.

However, one option we are considering to get more battles covered is to contract out some of the research and scenario design work. For example if we could have two or three teams working concurrently on researching and designing different battles then we could release more games than the current one every 18 months. This would have the advantage of freeing up our time to focus on engine development while providing users with the games/coverage they want. I haven't had a lot of time just right now to develop this much but we would offer the design team ( one or more people - preferrably at least two people ) a royalty share. So if the game does well they will make some money. It would be unlikely to be enough to retire on, but getting paid something for what you enjoy ain't bad either.

Anyway, I will look at this more once COTA goes beta ( ie all new features are added ).

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: Jonas

I recently bought BIN because i like to play east front, but i realy have some problems with hex games systems. [>:]

You mean west front??

Also thats scary news about the pitful sales of HTTR after 30 man years. DOesn't bode well for the future of the series nor the furture of this kind of game. The main reason I see HTTR not doing aswell as it should is due to it being RTS. Yes I know thats what makes this game but its the STIGMA of the word RTS amongst the type of wargaming fraternity that would love this game that has contributed ot pitiful sales. HTTR really should be on every wargamers shelf. All the TAO/KP/BiN players all the PzC and TOAWCOW should buy a copy, then I'm sure sales wouldn't be pitfull. Such a shame. Ive seen it myslef. People saying oh I wouldn't buy that its RTS. Yes you can say their loss but is it?

[Rooster]

Arjuna -

I think the idea that you are working on is very smart. As you say, contracting development of maps and estabs and scenarios out to the community would allow you to pump out more product faster and, simultaneously, develop the game system further. And giving the community the ability to participate and even profit some from their passion is only a good thing. It will certainly attract the top talent. Good move.

I also find your idea interesting because I'm not sure anyone has done it this way before. I remember in CC, when the game was completely editable, it made the series very popular among the hardcore fans. Their labor, in turn, made the game popular among a broader audience. Then Atomic chose to semi-encrypt the data files and it took a while for the editors/hackers to figure a way into the system to again make it fully editable again. Nowadays, their are many excellent non-authorized extensions of CC, an engine that should have given up the ghost long ago. Not to say this was a good thing for Atomic. RIP. Their may be other issues there, I don't know.

Then there is the Battlefront case study. Much more similar to your current model in that you can mod everything but the "estabs." It is certainly working for them. But they are "turn based" and darn if they don't have fans galore. Maybe Wodin is right.

To Wodin's point, I do think that the turn-based crowd is the sweet spot of this market. But I hope that changes. Side note: Turn based players are hard to beat at this game, I think there's something about playing the turn based games that makes you evaluate the game and the situation in the game in a much more critical manner. My current tournament opponent, an HPS fan, is very good. Better than me. I can only think it's due to the deliberate tactical focus that turn-based games bring. Or I suck. Not sure which [:D]

At any rate, I actually wanted to make a point (note to self, don't drink beer while posting). I think you should open up the estabs to all comers. Sure somebody is going to pump out an East Front extension pack before you get there. I don't think it will hurt you though. I still have a copy of Das Fuch's Eastern Front mod for CC2. It was a very very well done mod. Did it hurt CC3? Uh... No. CC3 was (and still might be) one of the best selling computer war games of all time. Well, at least of the CC series. By allowing the community to go their first, you will attract a much more rabidly faithful and demanding community. A community that will pay for the next version because it brings the enhancements only you can deliver. They in turn will generate greater interest... and so on.

Of course, it comes down to distribution too. CC3 was a Microsoft product. Distribution is king. I know this from my own way of making a living.

Whichever direction you choose, I want to thank you for making a great game and for being so accessible to us customers. [:)]


Edited for the one typo that I saw, and for the following link, which provides further perspective: tm.asp?m=820066